"  Cotter  v.  Doty,  5  Ohio.  395.
*■  Ctmtra^  see  Hagan  v,  Deuell,  24'  Ark.  216.
244  THE    LAW   OF    REPLEVIN.
mands  the  officer  to  seize  the  identical  property  and  make  a  par*
ticular  disposal  of  it ;  and  while  the  officer  is  acting  in  obedience
to  that  command  the  law  will  not  permit  any  other  party  to
interfere  and  prevent  him  from  doing  what  the  writ  directs  him
to  do."

§  267.  The  distinction  between  a  writ  of  replevin  and
an  execution,  or  attachment.  There  is  a  marked  distinction
to  be  observed  between  goods  taken  by  an  officer  on  an  execu-
tion, or  attachment,  and  goods  taken  on  a  writ  of  replevin.  In
the  latter  case  the  identical  goods  are  in  the  custody  of  the  law,
and  are  before  the  court-to  be  disposed  of  as  it  shall  see  proper ;
and  the  proceeding  is  so  far  in  rem  that  the  goods  cannot  be
seized  upon  any  process  until  the  court  shall  have  taken  action-
If,  therefore,  a  party  finds  his  goods  in  the  hands  of  an  officer
upon  a  valid  writ  of  replevin,  and  that  they  have  been  taken
from  the  possession  of  the  defendant  named  in  the  writ,  his  rem-
edy is  by  an  application  to  the  court  to  be  permitted  to  come  in
and  set  up  his  claim  to  them,  and  not  by  an  independent  replevin.
Whereas,  if  goods  are  wrjaggfuUy  seized  by  an  officer  upon  ex-
ecution or  attachment  it  cannot  be  said  to  confer  any  lien  on
them,  or  to  bear  any  resemblance  to  a  proceeding  in  rem.^

§  258.  Cross-replevins  not  allowed.  Instances  have  oc-
curred where  tl^e  defendant  in  replevin  has  sought  to  forestall
the  action  by  another  replevin  at  his  own  suit  for  the  same  goods.
