C.  A.  432,  51  Fed.  641,  where  it  was  held  that  goods  taken  by  the
sheriff  under  an  attachment  from  a  state  court  may  be  replevied
in  the  Federal  court,  in  case,  before  the  institution  of  the  replevin^
the  Judgment  in  the  state  court  in  which  the  attachment  issued,  has
been  fully  satisfied.  The  Federal  court  will  not  appoint  a  receiver
for  a  church  or  other  structure  pertaining  to  a  mission  school  situate
upon  an  Indian  Reservation,  where  it  appears  that  the  same  struc-
ture is  the  subject  of  a  suit  in  replevin  pending  in  the  state  court;
nor  enjoin  the  plaintiff  in  the  state  court  from  interfering  with  the
property  which,  under  the  process  of  the  state  court,  has  been  placed
in  his  possession,  Domestic  Society  v.  Hinman,  13  Fed.  161.  The
Federal  courts  cannot  allow  the  writ  of  replevin  where,  as  in  Virginia,
the  writ  is  abolished,  Baltimore  Co.  v.  Hamilton,  16  Fed.  181.  The
owner  of  goods  wrongfully  taken,  who  is  a  fellow  citizen  of  the  same
state  with  the  wrong-doer,  may  assign  the  title  to  a  non-resident,
and  he  may  maintain  replevin  in  the  Federal  court,  notwithstanding
the  prohibition  contained  in  Section  11  of  the  Judiciary  Act  of  1789,
Deshler  v.  Dodge,  16  How.  622,  14  L.  Ed.  1084.
Jurisdiction  C^enerally, — <Where  the  sheriff  levies  upon  the  goods  of
A  under  process  against  B,  the  action  of  the  latter  for  their  recovery  is
net  confined  to  the  court  from  which  the  process  against  B  issued;  It
may  be  brought  in  any  other  court  of  competent  Jurisdiction  within
the  state,  Dayo  v.  Provinski,  90  Mich.  351,  61  N.  W.  &14;  Johnson  v.
