text:
US Supreme Court Center > Volume 124 > GUMBEL V. PITKIN, 124 U. S. 131 (1888) > Full Text
GUMBEL V. PITKIN, 124 U. S. 131 (1888)
Gumbel v. Pitkin, 124 U.S. 131 (1888)
Gumbel v. Pitkin
Argued December 20, 1887
Decided January 9, 1888
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
A court of the United States, sitting as a court of law, has an equitable power over its own process to prevent abuse, oppression, and injustice, which power may be invoked by a stranger to the litigation as incident to the jurisdiction already vested, and without regard to his own citizenship.
A marshal holding property under color of a writ of attachment, even if found to be invalid, issued from a court of the United States in an action at law can be made to hold also under a writ from a state court subsequently served by the garnishment process, and if the creditor in the process from the state intervenes in the cause in the federal Court and invokes its equitable powers, it is the duty of the federal Court to take jurisdiction and to give such relief as justice may require, and such priority of lien as the laws of the state respecting attachments permit, without regard to citizenship.
The exercise of the jurisdiction conferred upon circuit courts of the United States by Rev.Stat. § 915 to administer the attachment laws of the state in which the court is held, necessarily draws to itself everything properly incidental, even though it may bring into the court, for the adjudication of their rights, parties not otherwise subject to its jurisdiction, and is ample to sanction the practice of permitting the constructive levy, by attaching creditors under state process, upon property in possession of a United States marshal by virtue of an attachment made under a process from a circuit court of the United States for the same district, and their intervention in proceedings in the latter court where, as between state courts of concurrent jurisdiction, a similar method of acquiring and adjusting conflicting rights is prescribed.
A and B were citizens of the same state. A sued out a writ of attachment against B from a court of the state on a Saturday. On the following Monday, the sheriff attempted to levy the attachment, and found the property of the debtor in the custody of the United States marshal for the district, who had seized it by virtue of writs of attachment issued and levied on the intervening Sunday from the Circuit Court of the United States, in favor of other creditors. Being enable to obtain possession of the property from the marshal, he placed keepers about the building (who remained there until the sale) and served notice of seizure upon the marshal, and also process of garnishment. Subsequently, on the same Monday, the same and other creditors levied on the same property under other writs of attachment issued from the Circuit Court of the United states on that day, and the property, which remained all the time in the custody of the marshal, was finally sold by him under the Monday writs, the Sunday writs having been abandoned. Held that it was the duty of the court, having in its custody the fund arising from the sale of the property, all the parties interested in the fund being before it, to do complete justice between them, and to give to A priority, as if he had been permitted to make an actual levy under his writ.
The statement of the case, prepared by the Court, and prefixed to its opinion, was as follows:
This case was before this Court on a motion to dismiss the
writ of error, the result of which is reported in 113 U. S. 545. It is now here for final disposition upon its merits.
It appears by the record that a number of creditors of Joseph Dreyfus brought several actions at law against him as a citizen of Louisiana in the Circuit Court of the United States for that district, the plaintiffs being citizens of other states, in which writs of attachment were issued and levied upon the stock of goods belonging to him contained in a store and warehouse, No. 33 Tchoupitoulas Street, in the City of New Orleans. In these actions, judgments were rendered in favor of the several plaintiffs, and proceedings were had in them whereby the attached property in the hands of the marshal was sold, and the proceeds brought into the court for distribution. Pending these proceedings, and before an actual sale under the order of the court, Cornelius Gumbel, a citizen of Louisiana, the present plaintiff in error, filed a petition, called, according to the practice in that state, a "petition of intervention and third opposition." In that petition he shows that on October 27, 1883, he instituted a suit in the civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans against Joseph Dreyfus, and obtained therein a writ of attachment, which he alleges was executed by a seizure of the defendant's property, being the same as that levied on by the marshal in the actions in the circuit court; that subsequently judgment was rendered in his favor for the amount of his claim and interest, on which a writ of fi. fa. was issued to the sheriff of said civil district court directing the seizure and sale of the same property to satisfy his judgment; that the sheriff was obstructed in the execution of said writs, and the petitioner prevented from realizing the fruits thereof by the fact that the property subject to his attachment is in the actual custody of the marshal of the United States. The petition particularly sets out the facts constituting a conflict of jurisdiction to be that, on the morning of the twenty-ninth of October, 1883, when it was claimed that the sheriff had made his levy under the petitioner's writ of attachment, he found at the store, claiming to exercise rights of possession and control, deputy marshals of the circuit court in charge as keepers, and in execution of writs of attachment issued from that court; that
at the time of the seizure made by the sheriff no valid or legal writ had issued from the circuit court; that the writ or writs under which the marshal or his deputies were holding and claiming to hold the property had been issued on Sunday, October 28, 1883, and were absolutely null and void, both by common law and the statute law of Louisiana; that said writs, so issued on Sunday, on account of their illegality, were discontinued and abandoned by the plaintiffs in the several suits in which they had been issued; that other writs, subsequently issued in the same actions, were issued to the marshal, and under them he detained the property, which, however, in the meantime had become subject to the seizure under the petitioner's writ in the hands of the sheriff. The petition prays that the property in the custody of the marshal then advertised for sale should be restored to, and placed in the hands of, the civil sheriff, to be sold under the petitioner's writs of execution, in order that the proceeds might be distributed by the civil district court, or, if sold by the marshal, that the proceeds of the sale be ordered to be paid over to the civil sheriff, to be distributed by the civil district court, and also "for such other and further aid, remedy, and relief as the nature of the case may require and law and equity permit." This petition of intervention was filed by leave of the court, and with it a transcript of the proceedings in the civil district court in the case of Gumbel v. Dreyfus. The motion of the intervenor for a stay of the marshal's sale of the goods levied on was denied, and thereupon, on January 21, 1884, by leave of the circuit court, an amended and supplemental petition of intervention was filed by him, and also, on the eighth of March, 1884, a second supplemental petition. In these, the petitioner claims that if it be held in fact and in law that the marshal of the circuit court had effected a seizure of the property attached, which vested the jurisdiction of the circuit court as to its disposition and the distribution of its proceeds, and rendered impossible any actual seizure or physical control over the property by the civil sheriff, the intervenor is entitled to have his attachment recognized by the circuit court, and to share in the distribution of the proceeds of the property according
to priority of time of seizure under the laws of the state, and alleges that, in addition to the efforts made and proceedings had in behalf of the intervenor, the United States marshal had been served with interrogatories as garnishee, and in every legal and practicable way notified of the writ held by the sheriff, whereby a valid seizure was effected on petitioner's behalf, to take rank according to the time at which it was thus executed, and claims, in consequence, to be entitled to payment out of the fund in preference to all other attaching creditors.
The attaching creditors, plaintiffs in the circuit court, were made parties to these petitions of intervention, to which they appeared and answered. The cause came on for hearing in the circuit court, and judgment was rendered therein dismissing the petitions of intervention and distributing the entire fund in court, being the proceeds of the sales of the attached property, to the other parties plaintiff in the attachments in that court. The facts in relation to the levies under the attachments are found by the court as follows, 20 F. 426:
"Various creditors had obtained attachments on Sunday in this Court which were also levied on Sunday. The same and other creditors obtained attachments in several suits, also in this Court, some early Monday morning, shortly after midnight, and others between 8 and 10 o'clock A.M., which were also levied upon the same property."
"The intervenor had obtained his writ from the state court on Saturday. Early Monday morning, shortly after midnight, and while the marshal was holding possession of the property under the Sunday writ alone, the sheriff came to the store where the property was situated for the purpose of serving the writ, and demanded entrance, which the marshal refused. The sheriff placed his keepers around the building, and guarded the same continuously down to the time of the sale, and served notice of seizure, and subsequently process of garnishment, upon the marshal in charge of the store (before the service of any of the Monday writs) who had executed the process of attachment from this Court. The marshal preserved his possession without interruption from the moment of seizure down to the
Page 124 U. S. 1136
time he sold the property under the Monday writs, the Sunday writs having been abandoned. The property seized was the wines and brandies, etc., the stock of a wholesale liquor store."
The grounds of law on which the circuit court denied the right of the intervenor to participate in the distribution of the proceeds of the sale are stated, as a conclusion of law, as follows:
"1. As to the effect of what was done by the sheriff, nothing is before the court except the proceeds of a sale. They, and they alone, can have an award who show title; and, since all claim under process against the property of a common debtor, those alone who show a levy of the process upon the property. For in this state, the issuance and existence of the process create no lien. It disposes of this part of the case to say that the sheriff made no seizure, no caption of the property; its possession was withheld from him, and access to it was forcibly denied him. Whether this was done under color of good or bad writ, or without any writ, all seizure was prevented and no lien was effected. This would end the case of the intervenor, as to any privilege upon the fund, unless he can maintain that the marshal, holding under color of a writ from this Court, can be made to hold also under a writ from the state court, subsequently served by the garnishment process. The authorities for this proposition cited are Patterson v. Stephenson unreported, decided by the Supreme Court of Missouri at the April term, 1883, and Bates v. Days, 17 F. 167. Those cases are put by the courts which decided them upon a statute of the State of Missouri, which was deemed to have been adopted by the practice act of Congress regulating the procedure in the federal courts. In Louisiana we have no such statute, and there is therefore no need to discuss the question as to what would be the legal consequences if one existed. In this state, the courts are to be guided by the doctrine which is settled by the cases of Hagan v. Lucas, 10 Pet. 400, and Taylor v. Carryl, 20 How. 583, to the effect that when property susceptible of manual delivery has been seized and is held by the officer of and under process
from the court of one jurisdiction, it is incapable to be subjected to seizure by another officer of and under process from the court of another jurisdiction. The authorities are collated in Wilmer v. Atlanta & Richmond Air Line Railroad Company, 2 Woods 427, 428. It follows, then, that since the goods were and continued to be in the physical possession and custody of the marshal under writs of this Court, the intervenor could have acquired and did acquire no interest in the goods under his writ from the state court, and he can have no claim to the proceeds arising from their sale."
Proceeding further in its judgment to determine the order of priority of the creditors who attached under the writs from that court, the circuit court said:
"No right is claimed, and no right could have been acquired, under the Sunday writs or seizures. The statute prohibits (Civ.Pr. art. 207) the institution of suits and all judicial proceedings on Sunday. The question, then, is as to the priority of the attachments which were issued on Monday, i.e., after 12 o'clock on Monday morning."
The judgment then proceeds to award priority among these writs according to the order in which they were levied, after they came into the possession of the marshal, by him. On the trial of the issues upon the petitions of intervention, as appears by a bill of exceptions in the record, the intervenor offered in evidence a transcript of the proceedings and judgment of the civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans in the suit in which he was plaintiff, against Dreyfus, to the introduction of which the defendants objected. From that transcript it appears that by a petition in that cause it was alleged that Pitkin, the Marshal of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana, was indebted to the defendant, or had property and effects in his possession or under his control belonging to the defendant, wherefore it was prayed that Pitkin, as marshal, be made garnishee and ordered to answer under oath the accompanying interrogatories filed therewith. A citation was issued thereon to Pitkin requiring him to answer the interrogatories, which, according to the sheriff's return, was, together with a copy of the original and supplemental
petition and interrogatories in the cause, served on Pitkin in person on October 29, 1883 at 25 minutes past 12 A.M. The sheriff's return to the writ of attachment is as follows:
"Received October 27, 1883, and on the twenty-ninth day of October, 1883, proceeded to execute this writ against the movable property of def't, described more fully in my notice of seizure, when I found the said property in possession of the U.S. marshal, and by instructions of pl't'ff's att'y placed my keepers on the sidewalk in front of said property and kept them continually, both night and day, until January 25, 1884, when they were withdrawn by order of the pl't'ff's atty.; also, made general seizure by garnishment in the hands of J. R. G. Pitkin, marshal of the U.S. dist. court; from said general seizure nothing has as yet come into my possession or under my control, and this return is made up to date for the purpose of enabling the clerk of this court to complete a transcript of appeal."
It further appears from the transcript that on November 7, 1883, Pitkin appeared in the civil district court, as garnishee, without answering the interrogatories, and excepted to the jurisdiction of the court. On November 16, 1883, judgment was rendered by the civil district court in favor of Gumbel and against Dreyfus for the sum of $23,184.57, with interest from October 24, 1883,
"with lien and privilege on the property herein attached, and that plaintiff's claim be paid by preference over and above all other creditors, with costs of suit."
On December 6, 1883, a rule was granted by the civil district court upon Pitkin, requiring him to show cause why he should not desist from interference with the sheriff in the custody of the attached property, or be punished for contempt of the court in obstructing the execution of its orders and judgments, and also a rule was granted December 17, 1883, upon the marshal, jointly with the attaching creditors, in the circuit court of the United States, requiring them to show cause why the property seized, under the attachment issued at the suit of Gumbel, should not be sold, and the proceeds of the sale distributed in that cause. On January 4, 1884, some
of the defendants to that rule, without answering the same, excepted to the jurisdiction of the court, on the ground
"that it is incompetent to either sell the property, or determine the rank of the attaching creditors, or distribute the proceeds of said property, for the reason that the said property was in the hands of the United States marshal under attachment issued by order of the judge of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana at the time of said pretended seizure by the civil sheriff."
On January 14, 1884, the transcript of the record shows the following entry: "The rule and exception herein fixed for this day was by consent of counsel ordered to be continued indefinitely."
MR. JUSTICE MATTHEWS, after stating the facts as above, delivered the opinion of the Court.
The grounds on which the circuit court proceeded in denying the relief prayed for by the intervenor, and which have been reiterated in argument at the bar, are first that no levy of the writ of attachment was in fact made by the sheriff, because he did not, and could not, acquire actual possession of the property sought to be seized then in the possession of the marshal, it being essential under the laws of Louisiana to the validity of the levy of such a writ that the officer should thereby acquire actual and exclusive possession of the property to be attached, and second that no levy by the sheriff under his writ of attachment was effected by the notice served upon the marshal as garnishee, because the marshal, as an officer of the circuit court of the United States, was not amenable to, and could not be affected by, process from a state court.
It may be remarked in the outset that if the intervenor is entitled to any relief, the mode in which he has sought it is appropriate. On the motion to dismiss the writ of error, 113 U. S. 545, it was decided that his right to intervene by petition in this action was justified by the laws of Louisiana and by the decision of this Court in Freeman v. Howe, 24 How. 450. In Krippendorf v. Hyde, 110 U. S. 276, 110 U. S. 283, it was said:
"The grounds of this procedure are the duty of the court to prevent its process from being abused to the injury of third persons, and to protect its officers, and its own custody of property in their possession, so as to defend and preserve its jurisdiction, for no one is allowed to question or disturb that
possession except by leave of the court. So the equitable powers of courts of law over their own process, to prevent abuses, oppression, and injustice, are inherent and equally extensive and efficient, as is also their power to protect their own jurisdiction and officers in the possession of property that is in the custody of the law. Buck v. Colbath, 3 Wall. 334; Hagan v. Lucas, 10 Pet. 400. And when, in the exercise of that power, it becomes necessary to forbid to strangers to the action the resort to the ordinary remedies of the law for the restoration of property in that situation, as happens when otherwise conflicts of jurisdiction must arise between courts of the United States and of the several states, the very circumstance appears which gives the party a title to an equitable remedy, because he is deprived of a plain and adequate remedy at law, and the question of citizenship, which might become material as an element of jurisdiction in a court of the United States, when the proceeding is pending in it, is obviated by treating the intervention of the stranger to the action in his own interest as what Mr. Justice Story calls in Clarke v. Mathewson, 12 Pet. 164, 37 U. S. 172, a 'dependent bill.' In that case, it was further stated, speaking of contests between execution or attachment creditors in the federal courts, on the one hand, and strangers to the actions claiming title to the property, on the other, that"
"if the statutes of the state contain provisions regulating trials of the right of property in such cases, it might be most convenient to make them a part of the practice of the court as contemplated by §§ 914, 915, 916 of the Revised Statutes."
In the subsequent case of Covell v. Heyman, 111 U. S. 176, it was decided that the principle that whenever property has been seized by an officer of the court by virtue of its process, the property is to be considered as in the custody of the court and under its control for the time being, applies both to a taking by a writ of attachment under a mesne process and to a taking under a writ of execution. It was there also decided that
"property thus levied on by attachment or taken in execution is brought by the writ within the scope of the jurisdiction of the court whose process it is, and as long as it
remains in the possession of the officer it is in the custody of the law. It is the bare fact of that possession, under claim and color of that authority, without respect to the ultimate right to be asserted otherwise and elsewhere, as already sufficiently explained, that furnishes to the officer complete immunity from the process of every other jurisdiction that attempts to dispossess him."
So in Lammon v. Feusier, 111 U. S. 17, 111 U. S. 19, it was said:
"When a marshal upon a writ of attachment on mesne process takes property of a person not named in the writ, the property is in his official custody and under the control of the court whose officer he is and whose writ he is executing, and, according to the decisions of this Court, the rightful owner cannot maintain an action of replevin against him, nor recover the property specifically in any way except in the court from which the writ issued."
It thus appears that plaintiff in error came rightfully into the for whatever relief, either of a legal or equitable nature, that court was competent to give. It is equally true that he must depend exclusively on the circuit court for such relief as he can there obtain, for it is quite clear that the civil district court acquired no jurisdiction over the property under the writ of attachment held by the sheriff, nor any jurisdiction over the person of the marshal as garnishee, by virtue of the notice served upon him to answer interrogatories as such. The sheriff acquired no such possession of the property as to bring it within the custody of the state court, and the marshal was not amenable to the state court as its custodian for property which he claimed to hold officially under process from the circuit court. The circuit court alone had jurisdiction to inquire into and determine all questions relating to the property, and the rights growing out of its custody, held by its own officer under color of its authority, saving, of course, all rights of action against the marshal personally for his wrongful and illegal acts resulting in injury to third persons, except such as involved the legal right to take the property out of his possession. As we have already seen, and as has been many times declared by this Court, the equitable powers of the courts of the
United States, sitting as courts of law, over their own process, to prevent abuse, oppression, and injustice, are inherent, and as extensive and efficient as may be required by the necessity for their exercise, and may be invoked by strangers to the litigation as incident to the jurisdiction already vested, without regard to the citizenship of the complaining and intervening party. This is the equity invoked by the plaintiff in error, which was denied to him by the circuit court.
It is certainly true, and must be conceded, as was adjudged in the court below, that Gumbel acquired, under his writ of attachment, no strict and technical legal standing as an attaching creditor with an actual levy on his debtor's property. There was no such actual seizure of the property by the sheriff as was necessary to constitute a levy at law. That seizure was prevented, and the attempted levy thus defeated, by the wrongful and illegal act of the marshal. That officer had taken possession of the goods on Sunday, under color of process issued the same day, illegal by the laws of the state, and as such discontinued and abandoned by the parties. The possession thus acquired was made use of for the benefit of the plaintiffs in attachment in the circuit court to defeat the execution of the process of the state court. It was illegal in the marshal to have taken possession of the goods under the writs in his hands issued on Sunday. It was his duty, when the sheriff appeared with a lawful writ from the state court, to surrender possession to him. His failure and refusal to do so was an actionable injury in which the present plaintiff in error, in a suitable action at law, would have been entitled to recover, both against him and against the attaching creditors for whom and at whose request he was acting, the whole amount of the loss, measured by what the plaintiff would have made if he had secured the benefit of the priority to which he would have been entitled by a first levy of his attachment upon the property. Instead of resorting to such an action, the plaintiff in error appealed to the Circuit Court for that equity which that court was entitled to administer by virtue of its duty to redress injuries occasioned by the abuse of its process on the part of its officers and suitors. Why should that equity not
be administered in this proceeding? The court had before it all the parties, together with the property which was the subject of contention. The remedy was plain, simple, and effectual. It could award to the intervenor the position in respect to the property and fund in court which, but for the injustice done him by the conduct of its officer and suitors in the abuse of its process, he would have acquired by a legal levy under his attachment. Neither the marshal nor the creditors for whose benefit he acted ought to be allowed to say that the intervenor had been deprived of the substance of his rights because, by their illegal and oppressive conduct, he had been prevented from clothing it with technical forms. It is a cardinal maxim that no one shall be allowed in a court of justice to take advantage of his own wrong. No more flagrant instance of a violation of that fundamental principle can be conceived than that which is furnished by the circumstances of the present case. The very ground, and the sole ground, on which relief is denied to the plaintiff in error is that he has been prevented from asserting it legally by the violence and wrong of those who now deny it.
This principle has especial application in cases of proceedings by attachment.
"The existence of the proceeding by attachment [it is said in Drake on Attachments § 272] could hardly fail to give rise to fraudulent attempts to obtain preference where the property of a debtor is insufficient to satisfy all the attachments issued against him. When it transpires that there are circumstances justifying resort to this remedy, the creditors of an individual usually press forward eagerly in the race for precedence, sometimes to the neglect of important forms in their proceedings, and sometimes without due regard to the rights of others. On such occasions too, notwithstanding the safeguards generally thrown around the use of this process, and in violation of the sanctity of the preliminary oath, it has been found that men in collusion with the debtor, or counting on his absence for impunity, have attempted wrongfully to defeat the claims of honest creditors by obtaining priority of attachment on false demands. There is therefore a necessity -- apparent to the most superficial
observation -- for some means by which all such attempts to overreach and defraud, through the instrumentality of legal process, may be summarily met and defeated. Hence provision has been made in the statutes of some states for this exigency; but where such is not the case, the courts have broken the fetters of artificial forms and rules, and attacked the evil with commendable spirit and effect."
Accordingly, it has been held in New Hampshire, in the absence of a statute authorizing an attaching creditor to impeach the good faith of previous attachments, that on a suggestion that a prior attachment was prosecuted collusively between the plaintiff and defendant for the purpose of defrauding creditors, the court would permit a defense to be made by the creditors in the name of the defendant, Buckman v. Buckman, 4 N.H. 319, and that a subsequent attaching creditor might move to dismiss a prior attachment on the ground that there was no such person as the plaintiff therein, Kimball v. Wellington, 20 N.H. 439.
In Virginia it has been held that a junior attaching creditor may come in and defend against a senior attachment by showing that the debt for which it issued had been paid. McCluny v. Jackson, 6 Grattan 96. In Smith v. Gettinger, 3 Ga. 140, it was decided upon general principles, and without any aid from statutory provisions, that a judgment in an attachment suit may be set aside in a court of law, upon an issue suggesting fraud and want of consideration in it, tendered by a junior attaching creditor of the common defendant. In Massachusetts, provision is made for appropriate relief in such cases by statute. Lodge v. Lodge, 5 Mason 407; Carter v. Gregory, 8 Pick. 165; Baird v. Williams, 19 Pick. 381; Swift v. Crocker, 21 Pick. 241.
The case of Paradise v. Farmers' & Merchants' Bank, 5 La.Ann. 710, is an important adjudication, having a direct bearing upon the point now under consideration. A suit in chancery was instituted in Memphis, Tennessee, by stockholders of a bank there against the bank and its president and directors, in which a receiver was appointed, an injunction obtained, and an order for the delivery of the assets of the bank
to the receiver served on the president, who, during an unsuccessful attempt to enforce the process of the court, obtained possession of the assets and ran off with them to New Orleans, where they were attached in his hands by a creditor of the bank and were claimed in the attachment suit by the receiver appointed by the court in Tennessee. The courts of Louisiana ordered the attached property to be released from the process and delivered to the receiver. The supreme court of the state, in its opinion, said:
"The property which thus stands before us for adjudication thus appears to have been brought within the jurisdiction of this court in disobedience and in violation of the process of a court of a sister state and in fraudulent violation of the rights of property of its real owners. It is proved that the process of the court of chancery and a writ of injunction and an order directing the delivery of the assets of the bank forthwith to the receiver were duly served on Fowlkes (the president), as well as the directors of the bank. The grounds on which it is contended the judgment of the district court (ordering the property to be delivered to the receiver) is to be reversed are (1) that a receiver in chancery cannot maintain a suit without special authority from the court which appoints him (2) that the possession of the property attached not having been in the receiver, it is liable to the process of attachment at the instance of a bona fide creditor. We will not inquire into the technical question whether the authority of the chancellor is necessary to institute a suit at law; it is sufficient for us that property in relation to which an order of a court of a sister state of competent jurisdiction has been issued has been fraudulently or forcibly withdrawn from its jurisdiction by a party to the suit, and that the injunction issued in this case by the chancellor is still in force and binding upon the offending party. The order of the court of chancery is a sufficient authority for the intervenor [the receiver] to receive the assets of the bank, and the delivery to him will be a good delivery binding upon the bank, as well as in furtherance of justice. We have uniformly discountenanced all attempts, in whatever form they may be made, of making our courts instruments for defeating
the action of courts of other states on property within their jurisdiction by means of clandestine or forcible removal to this state. The only decree which we render in such cases is that of immediate and prompt restitution, or one preventing any rights to be acquired by these attempts to defeat the ends of justice. This is an answer to the question raised concerning the peculiar right of the creditor. The only right which he in any event could reach would be subordinate to the injunction from the operation of which this property has been attempted to be removed. Not only on general principles, but on the cases cited by the learned judge who decided this case, the claim of the plaintiff to subject this property to attachment is without the shadow of right."
The case just cited was not so flagrant as the present. The attaching creditor in that case was innocent of any participation in the wrong involved in the removal of the property from the jurisdiction of the Tennessee court. Here, the attaching creditors are the very parties at whose instance and for whose benefit the wrong upon the intervenor has been perpetrated. Upon general principles, therefore, and in the exercise of its equitable power as a court of law to prevent and redress injustice committed upon a stranger by the abuse of its process on the part of its officers and suitors, the circuit court ought to have granted the relief to the intervenor which by its judgment is denied.
There is, however, another ground on which the same conclusion may safely rest. By § 915 of the Revised Statutes, the circuit court is authorized, in favor of suitors in that court, to administer the attachment laws of the state in which the court is held, and the exercise of this jurisdiction necessarily draws to itself everything properly incidental, even though it may bring into the court for the adjudication of their rights parties not otherwise subject to its jurisdiction. So that in Krippendorf v. Hyde, 110 U. S. 276, 110 U. S. 284, where the statute of Indiana regulating the process of attachment provided that after the institution of the suit and before final judgment, any creditor of the defendant might file and prove his claim with the right to participate in the distribution of the proceeds of the
attached property, it was said that in an action rightly instituted in the circuit court, in which the property of the common debtor was attached, all other creditors might appear in pursuance of the state law and share in the distribution, although citizens of the same state with the defendant, and although the amounts due them were less than the jurisdictional sum of $500.
In the case of Bates v. Days, 17 F. 167, decided by the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Missouri, it was held first by Judge Krekel and affirmed by the circuit judge McCrary, on a motion for a rehearing, that questions of priority between attaching creditors, some of whom were plaintiffs in that court and some in the state court, might be determined on proceedings for distribution of the proceeds of sale of the attached property made by the marshal, who had the actual custody by virtue of the first seizure, upon the ground that § 915 of the Revised Statutes incorporated, as a part of the practice of the courts of the United States for that district, § 447 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri, which provided that:
"Where the same property is attached in several actions by different plaintiffs against the same defendant, the court may settle and determine all controversies which may arise between any of the plaintiffs in relation to the property, and priority, validity, good faith, and effect of the different attachments, and may dissolve any attachment, partially or wholly, or postpone it to another, or make such order in the premises as right and justice may require,"
it being held in that state that if the writs issue from different courts of coordinate jurisdiction, such controversies shall be determined by that court in which the first writ of attachment was issued and levied. In the case referred to, the first attachment was issued out of the circuit court of the United States, the marshal having possession of the property by virtue of a seizure under that writ. The writ of attachment issued out of the state court was returned by the sheriff, stating that he had levied the same on the stock of goods of the defendant, subject to the attachment of the plaintiff, in the United States court, and that he notified the marshal of the attachment and
levy, and summoned him as garnishee. In deciding the case, it was said by the district judge that
"The executive officers of courts should understand that when writs issue from state and federal courts against the same property, the officer first obtaining possession, on being notified that a state court officer, as in this case, has a writ against the same property, all reasonable facilities should be offered such officer to make a full return, and the officer holding the property should show in his return whatever was done by such state court officer. Federal and state courts are not foreign courts or in hostility to each other in administering justice between litigants. The citizen of the state in the federal court is as much in his own court as in the courts of the state. The rights he has he cannot be deprived of in a federal court. The citizen of another state has the same claim to a debtor's property in the State of Missouri as a resident, but no more."
The same principle is asserted by the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri in the case of Patterson v. Stephenson, 77 Mo. 331, as between coordinate state courts. It was there said:
"On principle and reason, the validity of successive levies by the same officers on the same property is a recognition of the practical fact that there may be, after a taking into custody of the law the property of the debtor, an effectual imposition of another writ without an actual caption, or a taking away of the property, or an appropriation of it for the time being, to the attaching creditor's claim. It is held in such case that the second writ in the hands of the same officer is executed by him sub modo, so"
"it will be available to hold the surplus after satisfying the previous attachment, or the whole, if that [the first] attachment should be dissolved. In such case, no overt act on the part of the officer is necessary to effect the second levy, but a return of it on the writ will be sufficient. So where the property is in the hands of the bailee, the officer who placed it there may make another attachment, without the necessity of an actual seizure, by making return thereof and giving notice to the bailee."
Drake on Attachments § 269. In Tomlinson v. Collins, 20 Conn. 364, it is held in such case that the second attachment is valid even without any notice to the bailee.
Evidently the making of a second levy by the same officer is recognized because it does not disturb his custody of the property. If the rule which prevents one officer from levying on goods seized by another officer rests mainly on the prevention of conflict of jurisdiction and the interference of one officer with the prior custodianship of another, then, on the maxim cessante ratione legis, cessat ipsa lex, I can see no reason for the operation or recognition of the rule where the second levy does not produce such conflict or interference. For it must be borne in mind that the other requirement of the law, that the levying of an attachment is an actual seizure of the property, is satisfied in the case of successive levies by the same officer, by a constructive application of the succeeding writ "to the surplus after satisfying the previous attachment." Why, then, was not the act of the sheriff in the case now under consideration in taking the invoice of the goods in connection with the constable, "available to hold the surplus after satisfying the previous attachment," made by the constable? The constable had the requisite notice. It in nowise interfered with the prior custody. It produced no conflict, and would lead to no confusion.
Upon this reasoning, it is contended on behalf of the plaintiff in error that he was entitled to the benefit of § 1942 of the Revised Statutes of 1870 of Louisiana, which provides that
"Whenever a conflict of privileges arises between creditors, all the suits and claims shall be transferred to the court by whose mandate the property was first seized, either on mesne process or on execution, and the said court shall proceed to class the privileges and mortgages according to their rank and privilege, in a summary manner, after notifying the parties interested."
There are difficulties in the literal application of such a statutory provision, intended, of course, to regulate the practice between themselves of coordinate state courts, to cases of conflicting rights arising between suitors in the federal and state courts, where the systems are independent. It is impossible to transfer suits pending in the state courts into the circuit courts of the United States except as provided by
act of Congress for the removal of such causes. Nevertheless, the substance of the provision may be applied to the practice of the courts in attachment proceedings in such a way as to promote and secure that comity which ought to prevail between federal and state tribunals exercising concurrent jurisdiction, and to administer justice in a conflict of rights growing out of their independent action. Where, under a writ of attachment, the marshal of the United States has first seized property and taken it into custody, the exclusive jurisdiction of the circuit court is established over it and over all questions concerning it, but it ought not to follow that the property is thereby withdrawn from the assertion and enforcement of claims against it by those who must necessarily pursue their remedy in the first instance in a state court. A creditor residing in the same state with the defendant, and therefore required to institute proceedings in the state tribunal, ought to be enabled, by his writ of attachment, to subject the property of the debtor in due course, and according to the order of priority, even though, when the sheriff proceeds to execute the writ, he finds that property in the possession of the marshal of the United States, and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the federal court. In that case, no rule of law or of convenience is violated if he is permitted, by service of notice upon the marshal, to make a constructive levy upon the property, subject to all prior liens and without disturbing the marshal's possession. This, of course, would not have the effect of subjecting the marshal personally or officially to answer as garnishee to the state court as custodian of the property for the purposes of its jurisdiction, but would entitle the attaching creditor in the state court to acquire a right in the property and to appear in the proceeding in the circuit court to enforce it on a motion to distribute the proceeds of the sale of the attached property in its custody. This is the recognized practice in those states where successive attachments are authorized to be served by the same officer, acting as the executive of different courts, or by different officers each acting independently of the other. There seems to be no reason why a similar practice should not be adopted
as between federal and state tribunals acting concurrently in the administration of the same laws. Indeed, every consideration of justice and convenience might be adduced to support it. And such a practice in the courts of the United States, when authorized by law in the administration of attachment proceedings as between state courts, seems to us to be justified as a reasonable implication from § 915 of the Revised Statutes. That section expressly secures to plaintiffs in common law causes in circuit and district courts of the United States similar remedies by attachment against the property of the defendant to those provided by laws of the state in which such court is held for the courts thereof, and authorizes the courts of the United States, by general rules, to adopt from time to time such state laws as may be in force in the states where they are held in relation to the same subject. The remedies here spoken of, of course, are to be understood as they are defined in the state laws, and subject to the same conditions and limitations. The authority thus conferred is ample to authorize and sanction the practice of permitting the constructive levy by attaching creditors under state process upon the property in possession of the marshal and their intervention in proceedings in the circuit court of the United States for the same district, where, as between state courts of concurrent jurisdiction, a similar method of acquiring and adjusting conflicting rights is prescribed.
Under such a practice, if in the present case the marshal had acquired and held possession of the attached goods by virtue of a valid writ first levied, the plaintiff in error, by making his constructive levy, subject to the prior right and possession of the marshal, by giving him the appropriate notice of his claim to hold him as a garnishee in possession of the property for his benefit as to any surplus that might remain after payment of prior claims, would have thereby acquired the right, after establishing his claim by judgment in the state court and presenting proper proof thereof, to appear in the circuit court as an intervenor and secure his right to share in the proceeds of the sale of the attached property in his proper order.
But the case as actually presented upon the circumstances disclosed in this record is much stronger for such an intervention. When the sheriff of the civil district court undertook to levy upon the goods in question, and served the marshal with notice as garnishee holding actual possession of the property, the latter was in fact, as we have already seen, in possession illegally under a writ which protected his official possession only so far as to prevent the property from being forcibly withdrawn from the jurisdiction of the circuit court by judicial process, that court having acquired jurisdiction, by virtue of the seizure under color of its authority, to decide all questions concerning it. That writ, though illegally issued and levied, was not void on its face. In a certain sense, therefore, the property was in custodia legis, and not subject to a levy under process which would have the effect of taking it out of his possession and control. But when, in the exercise of jurisdiction by the circuit court in the determination of the question raised by the petition of intervention, the nature of the marshal's title and possession came to be inquired into, it was made apparent that he held the property illegally as a trespasser, and in that forum could be treated as holding it in a private and not an official capacity. It was subject, therefore, in the view of that court, to the consequences of the notice served upon the marshal as garnishee. It was held by the marshal as if it had been a surplus arising from the sale of the property of a defendant on execution, which, as is well established, may be attached in his hands. Drake on Attachment § 251.
The case therefore stands thus: for the reasons growing out of the peculiar relation between federal and state courts, exercising coordinate jurisdiction over the same territory, the circuit court acquired the exclusive jurisdiction to dispose of the property brought into its custody under color of its authority, although by illegal means, and to decide all questions of conflicting right thereto; the plaintiff in error, having pursued his remedy by action against his debtor in the state court, to which alone, by reason of citizenship, he could resort, attempted the levy of his writ of attachment upon the goods in the possession
of the marshal; not being allowed to withdraw from the marshal the actual possession of the property sought to be attached, he served upon the marshal notice of his writ as garnishee; not being able by this process to subject the marshal to answer personally to the state court, he made himself a party to the proceedings in the circuit court by its leave, and proceeded in that tribunal against its officer and the creditors for whom he had acted; on a regular trial, it appeared as a fact that at the time of the notice, the marshal was in possession of the property wrongfully as an officer, and therefore chargeable as an individual. It was competent for the circuit court, and, having the power, it was its duty, to hold the marshal liable as garnishee, and having in its custody the fund arising from the sale of the property, and all the parties interested in it before it, that court was bound to do complete justice between all the parties on the footing of these rights, and give to the plaintiff in error the priority over all other creditors to which, by virtue of his proceedings and as prayed for in his petition of intervention, he was entitled.
On these grounds, the judgment of the circuit court is reversed and the cause remanded with directions, upon the facts found in the circuit court, to award judgment in favor of the intervenor Gumbel in conformity with this opinion.
Powered by Justia US Supreme Court Center: GUMBEL V. PITKIN, 124 U. S. 131 (1888)


KAITO and 鏡音レン are vocaloids. VOCALOID is a Singing Synthesizer technology and application software developed by the Yamaha Corporation that enables users to synthesize singing by just typing in lyrics and melody. Yamaha announced its development in 2003 and in January 2004 the first application software product was launched. Read more on Last.fm.


Hot summer days are over, meaning that the baking season is back!
Last weekend I made this indulgent vegan apple and cinnamon pie - a mixture of my imagination, memories from childhood, and inspirations from the autumn season.
So if you love a good sweet treat - give it a read!
As any cake or pie, this one takes a while to make, but majority of time it is either baking in the oven or cooling it down in a fridge. So pour yourself a large glass of wine and enjoy the making of this beautiful and pink vegan cake.
Start with mixing literally all base ingredients in a large blender. I use sharp blades for about 2 minutes and then switch to dough blades for 2 more minutes.
Pour dough into the tray and bake for about 70-85 minutes on 210C. While the pie is baking - prepare apple filling. Peel and cut apples and cook them in a large frying pan together with vegan butter, light brown sugar, cinnamon and white wine. Cook on medium heat for about 10 minutes, constantly stirring.
Meanwhile make a glaze. It is super easy - just put all glaze ingredients into a blender with sharp blade for about 2-3 minutes. Leave to rest.
Once the pie cooled down, cut it into two parts horizontally. Put a fair bit of apple and cinnamon filling on the first part and then place the second half of it on top. Then pour over the glaze and put back in a fridge (overnight ideally). After some time, take it out and pour the remaining apple and cinnamon sauce on top. Decorate with sparkly sprinkles!
I served it with chocolate powder, sugar powder and dairy-free ice-cream. No matter how you decide to present it - enjoy!


So true! Father Philizzle is so excited to begin a new chapter as well! Passion for creating a community where openness and honesty is valued and passion is shared. The venture begin in April….Smiling lots!
w00T! w00T! The Smaldones are coming outta their skin in April Anticipation. And no… it's not an April Fool's Day joke!
Hi Donna, it was great getting to know you, and Skip at Ken's 41st b-day. We had met before at the murder mystery in October. I, was the quiet one. lol.. I was so glad to hear that Skip was taking over the music department at Christ Church. Yes, I will miss Ray but people have to grow in their life. I can't wait to get to know your family better. Peace out…and welcome home Donna.
Thanks so much, Giselle! That Murder Mystery sure was a bevy of connectivity (not to mention huge fun!) So glad to know you and be part of such an amazing crew at Christ Church!
I'm so excited and feel so special to a part of such a moment in the community and in each others lives. These are going to be such wonderful days to look back on, we truly have to sit in these coming days and FEEL them … close our eyes, breathe deeply … to remember that warm stomach feeling of happiness and love.
Well said, Jessica! Well said.
Wow…I just had a wave of nostaliga sweep over me. Skip: talented musician + loves God = equals heart-quaking and shaking worship!!! Congratulations to both of you in this newest chapter of your life. Your story is funny, exciting, inspiring…and I miss you both!
PS Happy 'early' birthday to you Donna!
Apparently, God did not think that part of your expedition was over- love it!
True indeed, Karen! And we're glad that it's not over yet. Can't wait to see what's next.
Sounds like you guys have been busy way over there in the ADKs. We're coming home in late April for a week or so. We'd love to come check out Abbott's Pharmacy when we're there. We'll be in touch. Love you guys.


Here is where we have control over ports, we can open, close and assign to any device.
To do this, at the bottom of the screen we will select the option "Crear neuvo juego o aplicacion" ("Create new game or application").
Here we will enter a name for our new game or application. In the options below we will select the one that says "Entrada manual de mapas de puertos" ("Manual Entry of Port Maps") and we click Next.
we are going to define the range of ports, which can be as wide as we need it. In this case I just need to open only one port the 1194, so my interval is from 1194 to 1194.
The other options are left with the default values that have, we click on "Agregar" ("Add"), the screen will refresh and we will see a table that was not previously with the newly opened ports.
Next, we just need to assign that port to a device, basically, this is a type of redirection, because if a request comes to our router with a specific port, the request will be redirected to the device that is assigned that port.
For this we go to the options at the bottom of the modem setup screen and select the option "Asignar un juego o aplicacion a un dispositivo de red local" ("Assign a game or application to a local network device").
in the table, we will choose the game which we are going to assign, and the device which we are going to assign a game.
Once we have specified these data, we will click the button "Agregar" ("add").
And that is all, we have opened a port and also have set a condition to redirect traffic to the computer or device that will -serve the request.
Aquí los 8 del lab.


I had to give it a try with the two browsers i'm using right now on my MBP: Firefox 2.0.0.13 and Safari 3.1 (5525.13). Not very surprisingly Safari ( 1753.60ms total details) came out on top of Firefox (9462,60 ms total details). Things are definitely looking better for Firefox 3.0. But I'll wait until it is out of beta and the important plug-ins i'm using are working seamlessly with FF.
That said, i'm still using Firefox as my primary browser. The main reason being the extensability and the slew of extensions. Safari has a looong way to go to catch up on this. Anybody having a tip for a decent de.licio.us integration for Safari?


i've been volunteering at the animal shelter for about two months now. i cannot begin to express how marvelous and rewarding an experience this is. i believe i get more from the animals there than i give. that's a whole other story.
since my birth, to age 18, our family always included a dog or cat and once both at the same time. at age 18 i set off. i didn't have a pet again until ten years later when i became a cat person. i had cats for 25 years.
i haven't had a pet for a while now. until Mr. Peabody. Buddy for short.
it was a day like every other. i was walking dogs, doing laundry, and socializing cats. then it happened. i walked by kennel 52. there he was. it was, as they say, love at first sight. we just knew. we were meant for each other. i took him for a walk to learn a bit more about him and his behavior. he was awesome. he is awesome.
he is essentially a mini-me, laid-back, calm, low-key, loving, sweet, blah, blah, blah.
not to mention our eyelashes.
this is a new beginning for us both. he was a stray. i was ready for a dog/son.
it's only been three days. he's been fixed so no beauty parlor for him yet. that's planned for november 24th. he'll get the works. already he has more toys than i think he knows what to do with. and yet, can a dog ever have too many toys?
if you can, please adopt a pet from an animal shelter.


MONDAY, Feb. 13, 2017 (HealthDay News) -- It's still flu season, and not too late to get your flu shot. But a new study suggests that people with eczema should request the vaccine be given into the muscle, rather than just under the skin.
That's because the effectiveness of flu shots in people with eczema appears to vary, depending on how it's given, researchers report.
The problem seems to lie with the fact that the cracked, dry skin of eczema patients is often colonized by Staphylococcus bacteria. And that seems to dampen the immune response from the flu vaccine -- if the shot is given into the skin, the researchers said.
"Staphylococcus infections are a widespread problem among [eczema] patients, with up to 90 percent of patients with severe disease colonized by the bacteria," lead researcher Dr. Donald Leung, of National Jewish Health in Denver, said in a hospital news release. He's head of pediatric allergy and immunology at the medical center.
Leung's team believes that people with eczema "are likely to get the most protection from traditional intramuscular influenza vaccines, rather than intradermal vaccines."
Eczema is the most common chronic skin disease in the United States, affecting more than 15 percent of children. The condition persists into adulthood for about half of them.
As the researchers explained, intradermal (into the skin) flu vaccines were first approved for use in U.S. adults in 2011. Needle-phobics no doubt prefer them, because they involve smaller needles that penetrate less deeply and, "use significantly less material to achieve similar immunologic effects in most people," according to the news release.
But Leung's team wondered if intradermal shots would be as effective in people with eczema. So, the researchers tracked immune responses for 202 people with eczema and 136 people without the skin condition.
About half of the study participants got an intradermal flu vaccine, while the other half received the intramuscular shot.
The result: About a month later, only 11 percent of those who received an injection in the skin had developed protection against the strain of flu targeted by the vaccine, compared with 47 percent of those who received an injection into the muscle.
Leung's team note that skin swabs taken from 42 percent of participants also tested positive for staph bacteria.
The researchers said it's not yet clear if the presence of the bacteria was the cause of the lower flu immunization rate for those who got the intradermal shot.
However, the researchers pointed to prior studies that have shown that colonization of the skin by staph infections can cause immune cells to "retreat" from the skin. Staph bacteria also produce toxins that typically inhibit the activity of certain immune-system cells, the study authors explained.
Dr. Nika Finelt is a dermatologist at Northwell Health in Manhasset, N.Y. She called the study "important," highlighting the need for special care when immunizing people with eczema.
Dr. Leonard Krilov, chair of pediatrics at Winthrop-University Hospital in Mineola, N.Y., agreed. He also believes the study highlights why children with eczema, especially, should get the flu shot.
"This emphasizes potential immune weakness in children with eczema, which could also put them at risk for more severe illness from influenza," Krilov said. "Thus, these individuals should be targeted to receive influenza vaccine."
The study was published online Feb. 13 in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology.
What is eczema (atopic dermatitis)? Is eczema contagious? What causes eczema? What does eczema look like? Learn about home remedies for eczema, how to treat eczema, and how to get rid of eczema.


text:
Dr Manuela Williams
Senior Teaching Fellow
Manuela Williams
444 8355 manuela.williams@strath.ac.uk
I joined Strathclyde in September 2002. My research and teaching interests lie in the field of international history, and in particular the history of the Middle East (the interwar period, the history of the mandates, Arab nationalism and the emergence of nation states, pan-Arabism and post war conflicts), propaganda and political communication, twentieth century Europe (Italian Fascism and post-war European political history), widening access in higher education. I currently lead a project that investigates widening access students' transition from undergraduate to postgraduate studies.
I am Associate Dean for Postgraduate Taught courses in the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
I am the Course Director of the MSc in Historical Studies.
I am Fellow of the Higher Education Academy.
I was awarded the Strathclyde Teaching Excellence Award 2015.
Has expertise in:
The political history of the Middle East
The history of propaganda and information
Twentieth-century Europe
Widening Access in Higher Education
Postgraduate supervision
I welcome postgraduate applications in any areas of 20th Century history of the Middle East, history of propaganda and 19th and 20th century Italian history.
I have supervised, and currently supervise
Gianluca Fantoni, 'Red Screens: the cinematographic and television production of the Italian Communist Party', Ph.D. (2009-2013 - completed)
Sharlene McLaggan, '"Be Like Dad Keep Mum": The Development of Propaganda Targeting British Women from the First World War to the Second Wold War', Ph.D.
Ben Quail, 'The Great Society and War: The Propaganda of Lyndon B Johnson's Presidency', Ph.D.
Alessandra Magrin, 'The Buffalo Bill Wild West tours of Italy in the 1890s and 1900s', Ph.D.
Rebecca Lupton, 'Japan's decision to join the Axis Powers and the possibility that World War II began in the Far East', MRes
QAA Scotland - Student Transition (2015)
The Carnegie Trust Research Grant (2007)
British Academy Small Research Grant (2006)
Between Arab nationalism and Zionism : fascist politics and propaganda in the Middle East in the 1930s
Williams Manuela
Eunomia Vol 2, pp. 85-122 (2013)
Mussolini's war of words : Italian propaganda and subversion in Egypt and Palestine, 1934-1939
Eunomia Vol 1, pp. 49-78 (2012)
https://doi.org/10.1285/i22808949a1n2p49
Mussolini's secret war: Italian and British intelligence in the Mediterranean and Middle East
Williams M
Intelligence and National Security Vol 22, pp. 881-904 (2007)
Mussolini's propaganda abroad
La questione mediorientale nelle relazioni anglo-americane, 1950-1952
Ombre di guerra fredda (1998) (1998)
Palestine, Israel and Egypt : new scholarship on the Middle Eastern conflicts
Maglio Manuela
Propaganda and War in the Twentieth Century
Conflict in the Middle East 1900-1973
Living under a Dictator: Politics and Society in Fascist Italy
The Scramble for the Middle East: Arab Nationalism, Zionism and European Colonial Powers, 1914-1939
The power of persuasion: media, propaganda and the state during 20th century conflicts
Nationalism and nation-states in the Arab Middle East: 1900-1945
Transatlantic Influences: The US and Europe after 1958
Work Placement in History
Sources, Skills and Methods for Historians
English Historical Review (Journal)
Journal of Contemporary History (Journal)
Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History (Journal)
Contemporanea. Rivista di storia dell'800 e del 900 (Journal)
conference on '18 April 1948: Italy between continuity and rupture',
American Historical Association conference and annual general meeting
More professional activities
Lord Hope Building
View University of Strathclyde in a larger map

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Q: Where to set Mindray BC-5150 HL7 communication port number and ip address I'm working on a LIS TCP communication service with the Mindray BC-5150 laboratory device, and I could not found where to put the communication settings (service address and port number),but I did found where to set the network settings of the device itself (ip address, mask ...)
So my question is the following :

*

*How to set the ip address and the port number for HL7 communication service in the mindray BC-5150 ?

*If there is no such settings, is there really a way to establish tcp communication knowing just the ip address of the device ? I guess some port scanning is required if I'm not mistaking.

Note : Same for the Mindray bs-20

A: In BC-5150, port number is fixed and it is 5100

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Back in 2015, I wrote about Firefox's screenshot utility, which used to be a command in the GCLI. Well, the GCLI is gone now, but the coders at Mozilla have brought command-line screenshotting back with :screenshot, currently available in Firefox Nightly and Firefox Dev Edition. It's available in the Web Console (⌥⌘K or Tools → Web Developer → Console).
Once you're in the Web Console, you can type :sc and then hit Tab to autocomplete :screenshot. From there, everything is the same as I wrote in 2015, with the exception that the --imgur and --chrome options no longer exist. There are plans to add uploading to Firefox Screenshots as a replacement for the old Imgur option, but as of this writing, that's still in the future.
Copies the image to your OS clipboard for pasting into other programs. Prevents saving to a file unless you use the --file option to force file-writing.
The time in seconds to wait before taking the screenshot; handy if you want to pop open a menu or invoke a hover state for the screenshot. You can use any number, not just integers.
The Device Pixel Ratio (DPR) of the captured image. Values above 1 yield "zoomed-in" images; values below 1 create "zoomed-out" results. See the original article for more details.
Captures the entire page, not just the portion of the page visible in the browser's viewport. For unusually long (or wide) pages, this can cause problems like crashing, not capturing all of the page, or just failing to capture anything at all.
Accepts a CSS selector and captures only that element and its descendants.
When true, forces writing of the captured image to a file, even if --clipboard is also being used. Setting this to false doesn't seem to have any effect.
Allows you to set a filename rather than accept the default. Explicitly saying --filename seems to be optional; I find that writing simply :screenshot test yields a file called test.png, without the need to write :screenshot --filename test. YFFMV.
I do have one warning: if you capture an image to a filename like test.png, and then you capture to that same filename, the new image will overwrite the old image. This can bite you if you're using the up-arrow history scroll to capture images in quick succession, and forget to change the filename for each new capture. If you don't supply a filename, then the file's name uses the pattern of your OS screen capture naming; e.g., Screen Shot 2018-08-23 at 16.44.41.png on my machine.
I still use :screenshot to this day, and I'm very happy to see it restored to the browser—thank you, Mozillans! You're the best.
In the course of experimenting with an example design for my talks at An Event Apart this year, I came up with a way to keep track of which breakpoint was in force as I tested the design's responsiveness. I searched the web to see if anyone else had written about this and didn't come up with any results, so I'll document it here. And probably also in the talks.
What I found was that, since I was setting breakpoints in ems instead of pixels, the responsive testing view in browsers didn't really help, because I can't maintain realtime mapping in my head from the current pixel value to however many rems it equals. Since I don't think the browser has a simple display of that information, I decided I'd do it myself.
The labels can be any string you want, so you can use "Narrow", "Wide", and so on just as easily as showing the measure in play, as I did.
The downside for me is that we automatically can't make the labels cumulative in native CSS. That means the order the @media blocks appear will determine which label is shown, even if multiple blocks are being applied. As an example, given the styles above, at a width of 25em, the label shown will be <50em even though both the 38em and 50em blocks apply.
That's not a solution that scales, sadly. Probably better to sort the max-width media blocks in descending order, if you think you might end up with several.
The upside is that it's easy to find and remove these lines once the development phase moves to QA. Even better, before that point, you get a fully customizable in-viewport indication of where you are in the breakpoint stack as you look at the work in progress. It's pretty trivial to take this further by also changing the background color of the little box. Maybe use a green for all the block above the "standard" set, and a red for all those below it. Or toss in little background image icons of a phone or a desktop, if you have some handy.
So that's the quick-and-dirty little responsive development hack I came up with this morning. I hope it's useful to some of you out there—and, if so, by all means share and enjoy!
Addendum: Emil Björklund proposes a variant approach that uses CSS Custom Properties (aka CSS variables) to implement this technique.
I was recently noodling around with some new layout ideas for An Event Apart's speaker pages (e.g., Chris Coyier's or Jen Simmons') and wanted to share the ideas with other members of the team. But what I really wanted to show was wireframes to convey basic arrangement of the pieces, since I hadn't yet done any time polishing details.
I thought about taking screenshots and Photoshopping wireframe boxes over the various layout pieces, but then I wondered: could I overlay boxes on the live page with CSS? Or perhaps even create and overlay them with nothing but some declarations and a wanton disregard for the sensibilities of god or man?
And that's when I realized…I could.
Now I'm going to share my discovery with you.
Before I get started, I want to make one thing clear: this isn't backward compatible. I don't care. It doesn't need to be. It does work in the latest versions of Firefox and Chrome, within reasonable tolerances—Chrome falls a bit short on one aspect, which I'll point out when we get there.
All good? Then let's go.
The goal was creating X-filled boxes that wireframers love so very, very much. I figured, any container element that needs to have a box stuck over it gets a class of wireframe.
The boxes overlap each other because the layout pieces on the right are, at least for the moment, floated. They're laid out that way so that if the right-hand content is short and the bio and articles run long, they can wrap around below the 'sidebar'. It's generally useful to have the outlines showing the actual limits of the element boxes to which they're attached.
There is a potential drawback here: if your layout involves using negative margins to pull some elements out of their parents, and those parent elements are designated as wireframe boxes, outlines will stretch around the outhanging elements in Firefox, though not in Chrome. Borders do not act the same way in Firefox. I can't rightly call this a bug, because I'm honestly not sure what outlines should do here. Just be aware of it, is what I'm saying.
Anyway, drawing rectangles with outlines, that's the easy part. Now I needed two diagonal lines, going from corner to corner. But how?
Linear gradients, that's how. See, if you use quadrant-based directions for your gradients, special magic math happens under the hood such that at the exact midpoint of the gradient, the color-line that extends perpendicularly off the gradient ray shoots precisely into the corners of the two quadrants adjacent to the quadrant into which the gradient ray is pointing. Okay, that was probably hard to follow. For example, set the gradient direction as to top right and the 50% color line of the gradient will run into the top left to the bottom right corners.
Okay, that's one diagonal line. The other is literally a copy of the first, except for having it go toward a different quadrant.
Bingo: an X. But not one that scales terribly well. Using percentages there means that the gray lines will be as thick as 0.2% the total length of the gradient ray. Small boxes get thin, sometimes broken diagonals. Great big boxes get thick honkin' lines.
So I fixed it with calc().
And there you go: two-pixel-thick diagonal lines.
There are two things to note here, before we move on. First is that the spaces around the operators in the calc() values are intentional and, more to the point, necessary. If you remove one or both of those spaces, calc() will simply fail to work. In other words, calc(50%-1px) will fail—no background for you! This is as designed, and there are reasons for it I don't want to go into here, but suffice to say they exist and are arguably sensible. calc(50% - 1px), on the other hand, works as intended.
Well, mostly: this is where Chrome comes up a bit short. In large boxes, Chrome creates fuzzy lines thicker than 2 pixels. I'm not sure what it's doing to fudge the numbers here, but it sure seems like it's fudging something. The lines also don't go into the corners quite as precisely as they should. Firefox's lines, on the other hand, come out correctly sized no matter what box size I set up, even if they are a bit jagged at times, and they go exactly into the corners of all the boxes I tested. Chrome's sloppiness here isn't a deal-breaker, as far as I'm concerned, but it's there and you should know about it.
So that's an element with an outer edge and two diagonal lines. This is great as long as the box contains no actual content, which will sit on top of the diagonals, as you can see with the "hero image" in the top right. Maybe that's what you want, in which case great, but I specifically wanted overlays. That way I could stick them on a live page and sort of fade out the contents while sticking wireframe boxes on top, to make the boxes the focus while still showing the stuff inside them.
The stupidly large z-index on the ::before is there to put the box overlay above any gridded, flexed, or positioned content that has an automatic z-index, or at least a sensible one. You can raise it as high as you'd like (and your browser's bit-depth will allow). The small z-index on the elements themselves, on the other hand, makes sure they get an explicit stacking placement instead of an automatically-assigned place on the Z axis. I find this generally settles a number of odd behaviors in various browsers. Your experience may vary.
It was at this point that I realized there was a whole other level here. I mean, wireframe boxes stretched over content is pretty nifty all by itself. That could have been enough. But it wasn't.
Because what I realized was that I didn't just want wireframe boxes, I wanted labeled wireframe boxes. If a box was being applied to a list of articles, then I wanted a great big "Articles" label sitting in the middle of it, to make it obvious what was being placed there.
Well, there was already a content property just sitting there, waiting to throw in actual content instead of an empty string, but how to fill it? And that's when I knew that .wireframe's days were numbered.
Having done that, I could modify the CSS to insert the attribute value, style the inserted text to look nice, and use flexbox properties to center it in the box. So I did.
That yielded big beautiful bold Jubilat labels (Jubilat is one of AEA's brand font faces), sitting right on top of the center of the box, the crossing of the two diagonal lines behind them.
Which actually turned out to be a small problem for me. That text is certainly readable, but I wanted it to stand out a bit more from the diagonals. I decided to stack text shadows in order to semi-simulate outside text stroking.
It's possible to use just four offset shadows with minimal or zero blur, but I find it sometimes creates weird jags on serif fonts, so I like stacking blurred shadows better. But, again, you do you.
As I looked over the results, it slowly dawned on me that the white-on-gray box scheme works well enough for a starting wireframe setup with no branding applied, but I was planning to drop these on pages with actual design and colors and that sort of thing. I didn't want the boxes to fill with translucent white; I wanted them to be translucent versions of the page background color. And, furthermore, I wanted a way to be able to easily alter that color, when applied to different designs.
Custom properties to the rescue! Which is to say, native CSS variables to the rescue!
I could have assigned the variable to the [data-wf] rule instead of html, but I felt like setting them globally. Because that's how I roll, yo—Wulf & Shaw have no strings on me. If you want to bring the variables in closer, go for it.
While I was there, I figured, why not, let's also define a variable for the shared color of the outlines, diagonals, and label text.
The label could be broken out to use its own variable (e.g., --text or --label) easily enough, but I wanted a minimum of things to change. I know myself too well to set up a bunch of controls to fiddle with, especially where color is concerned.
And with that, I had a ready-to-hand, easily theme-able wireframing style block that I can drop into any development page and invoke simply by adding a few data attributes to the markup. Data attributes, I might add, that would be trivially easy to later find and remove with regular expressions. It's a quick way to make it clear to stakeholders that a work in progress is, in fact, in progress, as well as a handy way to visualize which pieces of a prototype layout are going where.
Now that we've come to the end and you're still hanging in there with me, let me just say that I hope you've enjoyed this little trip through various parts of CSS. If you have any questions, feel free to drop them in the comments below. I'll do my best to respond in reasonable amounts of time, travel and such permitting.
P.S. And one final note, as Kai Ryssdal would say: every bit of CSS I used here is covered in CSS: The Definitive Guide, 4th Edition . I turned to my print copy twice in the process of working all this out, as it happens, to remind myself of specific syntax (for custom properties) and whitespace requirements (for calc() operators). It really feels good to have a thing I made be useful to me!
The Graphical Command Line Interpreter (GCLI) has been removed from Firefox, but screenshot has been revived as :screenshot in the Web Console (⌥⌘K), with most of the same options discussed below. Thus, portions of this article have become incorrect as of August 2018. Read about the changes in my post Firefox's :screenshot Command.
Everyone has their own idiosyncratic collection of tools they can't work without, and I've recently been using one of mine as I produce figures for CSS: The Definitve Guide, Fourth Edition (CSS:TDG4e). It's Firefox's command-line screenshot utility.
To get access to screenshot, you first have to hit ⇧F2 for the Developer Toolbar, not ⌥⌘K for the Web Console. (I know, two command lines—who thought that was a good idea? Moving on.) Once you're in the Developer Toolbar, you can type s and then hit Tab to autocomplete screenshot. Then type a filename for your screenshot, if you want to define it, either with or without the file extension; otherwise you'll get whatever naming convention your computer uses for screen captures. For example, mine does something like Screen Shot 2015-10-22 at 10.05.51.png by default. If you hit [return] (or equivalent) at this point, it'll save the screenshot to your Downloads folder (or equivalent). Done!
Except, don't do that yet, because what really makes screenshot great is its options; in my case, they're what elevate screenshot from useful to essential, and what set it apart from any screen-capture addon I've ever seen.
The option I use a lot, particularly when grabbing images of web sites for my talks, is --fullpage. That option captures absolutely everything on the page, even the parts you can't see in the browser window. See, by default, when you use screenshot, it only shows you the portion of the page visible in the browser window. In many cases, that's all you want or need, but for the times you want it all, --fullpage is there for you. Any time you see me do a long scroll of a web page in a talk, like I did right at the ten-minute mark of my talk at Fluent 2015, it was thanks to --fullpage.
If you want the browser --chrome to show around your screenshot, though, you can't capture the --fullpage. Firefox will just ignore the -fullpage option if you invoke --chrome, and give you the visible portion of the page surrounded by your browser chrome, including all your addon icons and unread tabs. Which makes some sense, I admit, but part of me wishes someone had gone to the effort of adding code to redraw the chrome all the way around a --fullpage capture if you asked for it.
Now, for the purposes of CSS:TDG4e's figures, there are two screenshot options that I cannot live without.
I captured this using screenshot fb-trend --selector '#u_0_l'. That saved exactly what you see to fb-trend.png.
The first is --selector, which lets you supply a CSS selector to an element—at which point, Firefox will capture just that element and its descendants. The only, and quite understandable, limitation is that the selector you supply must match a single element. For me, that's usually just --selector 'body', since every figure I create is a single page, and there's nothing in the body except what I want to include in the figure. So instead of trying to drag-select a region of the screen with ⇧⌘4, or (worse) trying to precisely size the browser window to show just the body element and not one pixel more, I can enter something like screenshot fig047 --selector 'body' and get precisely what I need.
That might seem like a lot to type every time, but the thing is, I don't have to: not only does the Web Toolbar have full tab-autocomplete, the Toolbar also offers up-arrow history. So once I've tab-completed the command to capture my first figure, I just use the up arrow to bring the command back and change the file name. Quick, simple, efficient.
The second essential option for me is --dpr, which defines a device pixel ratio. Let's say I want to capture something at four times the usual resolution. --dpr 4 makes it happen. Since all my figures are meant to go to print as well as ebooks, I can capture at print-worthy resolutions without having to use ⌘+ to blow up the content, or fiddle with using CSS to make everything bigger. Also if I want to go the other way and capture a deliberately pixellated version of a page, I can use something like --dpr 0.33.
I have used this occasionally to size down an image online: I "View Image" to get it in its own window, then use screenshot with a fractional DPR value to shrink it. Yes, this is a rare use case, even for me, but hey—the option exists! I haven't used the DPR option for my talks, but given the growing use of HD 16:9 projectors—something we've been using at An Event Apart for a while now, actually—I'm starting to lean toward using --dpr 2 to get sharper images.
A snippet of an image I captured using --dpr 5. On-screen, the page was at 100% zoom, 16-pixel (browser default) text sizing. The resulting capture was 4000×2403 pixels.
And that's not all! You can set a --delay in seconds, to make sure a popup menu or other bit of interaction is visible before the capture happens. If you want to take your captured image straight into another program before saving it, there's --clipboard. And there's an option to upload straight to --imgur, though I confess I haven't figured out how that one works. I suspect you have to be logged into imgur first. If anyone knows, please leave a comment so the rest of us know how to use it!
The one thing that irks me a little bit about screenshot is that the file name must come before the options. When I'm producing a bunch of figures in a row, having to drag-select just the file name for replacement is a touch tedious; I wish I could put the file name at the end of the command, so I could quickly drag-select it with a rightward wrist-flick. But all things considered, this is a pretty minor gripe. Well, shut my mouth and paint me red—it turns out you can put the filename after the options. Either that wasn't possible at some point and I never retested the assertion, or it was always possible and I just messed up. Either way, this irk is irksome no more!
The other thing I wish screenshot could do is let me define a precise width or height in pixels—or, since I'm dreaming, a value using any valid CSS length unit—and scale the result to that measure. This isn't really useful for the CSS:TDG4e figures, but it could come in pretty handy for creating talk slides. No, I have no idea how that would interact with the DPR option, but I'd certainly be willing to find out.
So that's one of my "unusual but essential" tools. What's yours?
At least two of our three kids had a hard time being put to sleep at night. It wasn't so much that they objected to sleeping—once they were out, they stayed out all night—as they got very anxious about being left alone. I'm not talking about one-week-olds here; I'm talking more the 3-9 month range. We'd cuddle them to sleep, put them down very gently, cautiously trace a silent path along the non-creaking floorboards, noiselessly pull the door shut…and then the wailing would start.
But then we noticed that when we went back in to pick them and soothe them, they would take a great big indrawn breath, hold it, release, and settle down. We wondered: could they be relaxing because they smelled us, and that scent was triggering feelings of comfort and safety?
From then on, we would put the little one down to sleep, take off our shirt, and arrange the shirt in a wide horseshoe around the head and upper body of the sleeping baby, at least a foot separated on every side to avoid smothering risks. And…it worked. There was a lot more sleeping and a lot less waking up wailing. The scent seemed to give them what they needed to stay relaxed and asleep.
It probably won't work for every child who has trouble sleeping, but if you're having the same problem we did, try (safely!) surrounding them your shirt or some other article of clothing that smells like you. It might be just what they need to settle down and let you get some rest.
When you have children who are new to walking, getting things out of a car while in a parking lot can be a nerve-wracking experience: you know that your kid is capable of walking in any direction, and also that they're not really aware of the dangers a parking lot can contain.
Following the philosophy of "don't baby-proof the environment, make the baby proof for the environment", we had two parking lot rules that worked out pretty well, used for different stages of development.
Hand on the car. When out of the car, one of the child's hands must always be touching the car unless a parent is holding their hand. This sets a bound on how far away they can get from you.
Feet on the yellow line. The lines separating parking spaces are treated as if they're balance beams. The child can walk along the line, but not step off of it, unless a parent is holding their hand. This keeps the child between cars and away from the flow of traffic.
Obviously, these require training periods, and during that training you have to keep an eagle eye on the kid. And of course you can't rely on these rules to keep your children completely safe in a parking lot—only you can do that. In our experience, though, it greatly reduced our stress levels even in busy Christmas-time lots; plus, it was another way to stress the importance of both safety and obedience.
I get asked from time to time for my number one tip for new parents. My answer is always a single word.
Seriously. Get some earplugs. They don't have to be fancy; the squishy yellow foam plugs you can get in a cardboard holder for a dollar work just fine. If you already have some fancier in-ear jobs for rock concerts or woodworking or whatever, those are good too.
Because as much as you love your new baby, and as much as you will work to keep them calm and happy, there will almost certainly be times when they are hurting or uncomfortable or just generally upset and unable to be soothed. No matter how much you cuddle and sing and swaddle, they will scream and cry. Some kids will do this rarely. Others will do it all the time. (A friend of ours tells how her eldest child screamed more or less non-stop from the day she was born until the day she walked.) I don't honestly know which is harder to handle, but I do know that the screaming worked its way through my eardrums and into my brain to induce a panicked pseudo-flight-or-flight response. It was cumulatively, enormously stressful.
Earplugs do not shut out the cries completely. You will not be denying your baby's distress or placing unwarranted distance between you and your child. Earplugs simply take the raw, serrated edge off their cry, giving you some mental space to cope with it and be a calmer and therefore better parent. It lets you hang in there longer, putting off the point where you have to put the baby in the crib and walk away for a few minutes. (And that's okay too; the baby won't die if you take five to regroup.) That means more direct contact with your baby, and possibly a shorter time to a calm baby due to longer, more continuous periods of parental contact.
So: earplugs. Probably the highest-ROI parental purchase I ever made.


Dream Colonial in desirable commuter neighborhood! This charming, light-filled home offers a large living room with gas fireplace, dining room, 3 generous bedrooms, 1.5 baths, all recently updated, freshly painted interior in warm neutral colors and a charming new sun room to sit and relax. Crown molding and hardwood throughout with ceramic tile floor in kitchen featuring updated white cupboards and large pantry. NEW roof, water tank, and updated electrical. The exterior is maintenance free vinyl with the convenience of a 1 car garage. The yard offers many mature plantings and trees with a walk-out deck for a pleasant park like setting. Easy access to Rt 10, 95, and minutes to local schools, shopping (Garden City, Pawtuxet Village, Providence), restaurants, and Roger Williams Park. Transferable VA loan for qualified buyers. RI Housing $7500 Grant for Qualified Buyers! Current owners employment relocation is your opportunity to purchase this desirable move-in ready home!
GREAT" 3 BED 2 BATH BUNGALOW, UPDATED KITCHEN WITH STAINLESS STEEL APPLIANCES,BRAND NEW BOILER, NEWLY REFINISHED WOOD FLOORS, SOME NEW INTERIOR PAINT & RUGS, VINYL SIDED, A/C,PLENTY OF STORAGE, (2) SHEDS & MORE! ALL ON A PRIVATE 1/4 ACRE MANICURED LOT! "MOTIVATED SELLER" A MUST SEE !!


Skipper Terry, 30, opened the scoring with a first-half header before vice-captain Lampard, 32, ended relegation-threatened Blackpool's resistance with two goals in the second period, one a penalty.
Jason Puncheon, who hit the post for the home team in the first half, pulled a goal back with four minutes to go when he drilled a low left-foot shot into the corner of the net.
Chelsea are fourth in the table with 51 points from 28 matches. They are nine points behind Manchester United, who lost at Liverpool on Sunday, but have a game in hand and visit the Old Trafford side later in the season.
"I don't think we were at our best today. At times we were a bit sloppy but luckily with a bit of quality up front we won it," Lampard told Sky Sports.
As for Chelsea's title ambitions, Lampard added: "You have to believe. It's a long shot... but if we go and win every game we can still do it".
The Londoners' long trip to the north-west coast was anything but a pleasant evening by the seaside early on as Premier League paupers Blackpool hustled and bustled the multi-millionaires of Chelsea out of their stride.
Terry put the champions in front when he nodded home Lampard's right-wing corner in the 20th minute but the visitors were generally toothless in attack. New signing Fernando Torres hardly featured and strike partner Didier Drogba's touch was poor.
The Ivorian was forced off early in the second half after hurting his hip and compatriot Salomon Kalou came on as a substitute to revitalise Chelsea's fortunes. Kalou was brought down in the penalty area by Blackpool defender Ian Evatt in the 63rd minute and Lampard calmly stroked the spot kick past Richard Kingson.
Three minutes later Kalou produced some clever footwork before sending Lampard racing clear to sidefoot Chelsea's third goal.


got no copy and paste menu..very frustrating..
It has been returned to the supplier.
We were unable to get the B7722 to function in dual standby mode. It was a question of either or - not of both. Disappointing.
and if can use the mobile camera as web cam ??????????????
Samsung B7722 has been released from Hong Kong to USA but not in India.Why ?
What is Samsung waiting for ?
[deleted post]Samsung B7722 has been released from Hong Kong to USA but not in India.Why ?
i would like to find out how the call being make, for eg. if i make a new call, does the screnn appear hv 2 selection choice, "Call Sim 1", "Call Sim 2"?
and the same goes to when sending new SMS?
after buying it i found there is aproblem in the pictures taked by the mobile cam .... it appear normal on the mobil memory but when making image iditor or sending to computer it appear black !!!!
When will this phone be release in the philippines?
I need a bar type dual active sim phone that has 5 mega pixel camera and blacklisting of phone numbers for unwanted messaging and calls, but i can't find one in the market, so i am planning to buy this touch phone instead.
by the way I heard that it's user interface in general is not so good and this phone not support social networks like face book and Emails ?
and the touch screen ( general )dose not live long time and has many problems?
Does it support Fring / Nono Talk etc ?


How does PCN membership benefit copywriters? Anna Gunning shares her experiences of finding clients and getting support from PCN.
What's it like being a copywriter for an agency?
Ash Billinghay on Mother London raffling off creative placements for charity.
Kate Foster on what makes a great copywriter-client relationship.
Vikki Ross tells the story of #thingsyouhearinagencies and how Twitter can enable collaboration.
Honor Clement-Hayes on why a comfortable in-house copywriting life is for her.