Opinion of the Court.

v. Pinkney, 149 U. S. 194. In this connection jurisdiction of the "case," i.e. the crime, is undistinguishable from jurisdiction of the person who is charged with the crime.

We know of no reason why the rule, so frequently applied in cases of conflicting jurisdiction between Federal and state courts, should not determine this question. Ever since the case of Ableman v. Booth, 21 How. 506, it has been the settled doctrine of this court that a court having possession of a person or property cannot be deprived of the right to deal with such person or property until its jurisdiction is exhausted, and that no other court has the right to interfere with such custody or possession. This rule was reaffirmed in Tarble's case, 13 Wall. 397; in Robb v. Connolly, 111 U. S. 624; and In re Spangler, 11 Michigan, 298, and with reference to personal property has been so often restated as to have become one of the maxims of the law. Taylor v. Carryl, 20 How. 583; Freeman v. Howe, 24 How. 450; Ellis v. Davis, 109 U. S. 485; Krippendorf v. Hyde, 110 U. S. 276; Covell v. Пleyman, 111 U. S. 176; Byers v. McAuley, 149 U. S. 608; Moran v. Sturges, 154 U. S. 256; In re Chetwood, 165 U. S. 443.

The material facts of the case, upon which the petitioner relies, are: That on July 25, a warrant was issued by a United States commissioner for the Eastern District of Texas, charging him with the crime for which a warrant had already been issued against him by a commissioner of the Indian Territory, and upon which he seems to have been arrested by the marshal. A demand was made by the Texas marshal upon the marshal of the Indian Territory, but neither the petition nor the return to the rule to show cause shows that the demand was made before September first. Assuming that the commissioner for the Southern District of the Indian Territory exceeded his authority in issuing and the marshal in executing his warrant of arrest, it does not follow that the subsequent indictment and conviction were void. If the petitioner was in the actual custody of the marshal on September first, his subsequent indictment and trial were valid, though in the first instance he might have been illegally arrested.

Opinion of the Court.

Thus in the Ship Richmond v. United States, 9 Cranch, 102, an illegal seizure of a vessel was made in the waters of a foreign power by a vessel belonging to the navy for a violation of the embargo act, and it was held that, although the seizure within the territorial jurisdiction of a foreign power was an offence against that power, this court could take no cognizance of it, and the majority of the court was of opinion that the law did not connect that trespass with the subsequent seizure by the civil authorities under the process of the District Court, so as to annul the proceedings of that court against the vessel. This ruling was approved in The Merino, 9 Wheat. 391, 402. Indeed, there are many authorities which go to the extent of holding that, in criminal cases, a forcible abduction is no sufficient reason why the party should not answer when brought within the jurisdiction of the court which has the right to try him for such an offence, and presents no valid objection to his trial in such court. Kerr v. Illinois, 119 U. S. 436, 444; Ex parte Scott, 9 B. & C. 446, (1829); Lopez & Sattler's case, 1 Dearsly & Bell's Crown Cases, 525; State v. Smith, 1 Bailey So. Car. Law, 283, (1829); State v. Brewster, 7 Vermont, 118, (1835); Dows' case, 18 Penn. St. 37, (1851); State v. Ross & Mann, (1866) 21 Iowa 467. Although it has been frequently held that if a defendant in a civil case be brought within the process of the court by a trick or device, the service will be set aside and he will be discharged from custody. Union Sugar Refinery v. Mathiessen, 2 Cliff. 304; Wells v. Gurney, 8 B. & C. 769; Snelling v. Watrous, 2 Paige, 314; Williams v. Bacon, 10 Wend. 636; Metcalf v. Clark, 41 Barb. 45; Stein v. Valkenburg, 3 B. & E. 65; Williams v. Reed, 5 Dutcher, 385; Carpenter v. Spooner, 2 Sand. 917; Pfiffner v. Krapfell, 28 Iowa, 27; Moynahan v. Wilson, 2 Flippen, 130; Small v. Montgomery, 17 Fed. Rep. 865; Kauffman v. Kennedy, 25 Fed. Rep. 785. The law will not permit a person to be kidnapped or decoyed within the jurisdiction for the purpose of being compelled to answer to a mere private claim, but in criminal cases the interests of the public override that which is, after all, a mere privilege from arrest.

Syllabus.

But in this case there was nothing of the kind. The crime was committed and the prisoner arrested within the Territory, and within the local jurisdiction of the territorial court. Had he been arrested without warrant by the marshal, or even by a private individual, and detained in custody until after the first of September, he might then have been indicted, although, perhaps, an action might have lain against the person so arresting him for false imprisonment. If the jurisdiction of the Texas court had attached, or, in the language of the statute, had been "acquired," before September first, that would have been a good defence; but, as already stated, all that had been done was to issue a warrant which was never served, and there is nothing to show that a demand was made for the petitioner before the first of September. Whether, if such demand had been made, that would have itself vested the Texas court with priority of jurisdiction, is a question we are not called upon to discuss. It is clear that the mere issue of a warrant was not sufficient.

The petition must be

Denied.

BURDON CENTRAL SUGAR REFINING COMPANY v. PAYNE.

CERTIFICATE FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH

CIRCUIT.

No. 722. Submitted April 12, 1897.

- Decided May 10, 1897.

P. and P., owners of three sugar plantations in Louisiana, leased the sugarhouse on one of them with all its machinery, and such defined land in that plantation as might be found necessary for its use, to F. and F. for a term of years. The lessees agreed to buy during the term, and the lessors agreed to sell and deliver to them during that time, the sugar-cane grown on the three plantations. Elaborate provisions were made respecting the conduct of the business, and the manner of fixing from time to time the price of the cane. The thirteenth article was as follows: "The price of cane as above determined shall be paid as follows: Two and 15% dollars per ton shall be paid every Monday, for the cane delivered during

100

Syllabus.

the preceding week, until the delivery is completed. The balance, if any, per ton, shall operate as a lien and privilege to the full extent of such balance on the first bounty money received by the parties of the second part on sugar produced from cane ground at the Barbreck sugarhouse, and the said parties of the second part covenant and agree to consecrate solely to the payment of such balance all bounty payments so received by them, until the whole of the said balance shall have been paid." The twentieth article was as follows: The parties of the first part agree to keep all such books and records as are required by the United States Government in relation to the bounty, and to furnish to the parties of the second part all the details which may be necessary to enable them to effectuate their bounty rights." The lessees, with the consent of the lessors, transferred their rights and their interests under the lease to a corporation which assumed their obligations thereunder. This corporation became involved and a receiver was appointed in an equity suit brought by the Burdon Company. The lessors intervened in this suit, claiming that their claim for the balance due on the purchase price, and also their claim for cane delivered to the lessees were secured by a lessor's privilege, under Louisiana law, on the property of the lessees at the sugar-house, and the latter also by an equitable lien on any bounty that might thereafter be collected by the receiver. The Circuit Court decided that the intervenors were entitled to the lessor's privilege, and to an equitable lien on the bounty. An appeal having been taken from this decision, the Circuit Court of Appeals certified the facts to this court and propounded the following questions: "First. It being shown that the cane sold by appellees, J. U. Payne & Company et als., to the Ferris Sugar Manufacturing Company, Limited, pursuant to the contract between the parties, was grown on lands not embraced within the limits of the premises leased to the Ferris Sugar Manufacturing Company, Limited, are appellees, under the laws of Louisiana, considered in connection with the provisions of the contract, entitled to the lessor's privilege to secure the payment of the purchase price of such cane? Second. Under * the terms of the thirteenth article of the contract between the Paynes and the Ferrises, and to secure the payment of the price of the sugarcane sold and delivered under said contract, have the appellees H. M. Payne, J. U. Payne and the members of the firm of J. U. Payne & Company, an equitable lien upon the bounty money collected from the United States by the receiver in this suit? Third. If the second question shall be answered in the affirmative, can such equitable lien, under the laws of Louisiana, be so enforced in the present suit as to appropriate the bounty money to the payment of the claim of the Paynes, to the exclusion of the general creditors of the Ferris Sugar Manufacturing Company?" To these several questions the court now make answer as follows:

(1) The first question is answered in the negative;

(2) The second question is answered in the affirmative; (3) The third question is answered in the affirmative.

Statement of the Case.

THE Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, desiring the instruction of this court for the proper decision of certain questions arising in the above entitled cause, certified the statement of facts set out in full in the margin,1 and thereon propounded the following questions:

11. H. M. Payne, J. U. Payne and J. U. Payne & Company, a commercial firm composed of J. U. Payne, J. U. Payne, Jr. and R. W. Foster, all residents of New Orleans, La., were the owners of three contiguous plantations in St. Landry Parish, Louisiana, known as Barbreck, St. Peter's and Anchorage.

2. On June 16, 1892, they entered into the following contract with L. Murray Ferris and Wm. L. Ferris, of Poughkeepsie, New York, which was duly recorded:

"This indenture made by H. M. Payne, J. U. Payne and the firm of J. U. Payne & Co., all residents of the city of New Orleans, State of Louisiana, as the parties of the first part, and L. Murray Ferris and William L. Ferris, both residents of the city of Poughkeepsie, State of New York, as the parties of the second part, witnesseth: That whereas the said H. M. Payne, J. U. Payne and the firm of J. U. Payne & Co., parties of the first part, as aforesaid, are the owners and proprietors of three certain plantations, to wit: the Barbreck, St. Peter's and Anchorage places, their respective interest in the said three plantations being of record in the said parish, and

'Whereas, the said L. Murray Ferris and William L. Ferris, parties of the second part, as aforesaid, have proposed to contract, upon the terms and conditions hereinafter provided, for a lease of the Barbreck sugarhouse, and the purchase of the crops of the three aforesaid plantations : Now, therefore, the said parties of the first part, each for and as regards his respective interest in the said plantations, and the said parties of the second part jointly and severally, hereby contract, obligate and bind themselves as follows, to wit:

"

"Article first. The parties of the first part grant to the parties of the second part, upon the terms and conditions hereafter provided, a lease for a period of ten years, of the sugar-house situated on the Barbreck plantation, together with all the machinery and appurtenances thereto belonging, it being understood and agreed that this lease shall cover and include all the present enclosure around the Barbreck sugar-house and so much in addition towards the Anchorage plantation as may be necessary to provide space for handling cars, and, further, the land between the cane yard and the bayou, except the public highway, which shall be used in common by the parties hereto, provided, that the lease shall not include any cabins or dwelling-houses which may be situated on the aforesaid premises, the parties of the first part reserving to themselves the right to remove any and all such cabins or dwelling-houses off the said premises which the parties of the second part shall have the right at their option to require.

VOL. CLXVII-9