[Reusens SCOTUS Case (1885)] (a4.) It may be claimed that the latter part of the 29th rule provides for three distinct classes of Cases, V1Z.: A (1.) ‘** Where the property in controversy ne- ‘‘ cessarily follows the event of the suit, asin ‘real actions, replevin and in suits on mort- ** gages, : | (2.) “* Where the property is in the custody of ‘the Marshal under admiralty process, as ‘‘ in case of capture or seizure. (3.) «Where the proceeds thereof (7. e., the ‘“ property), or a bond for the value thereof, ‘Cis in the custody or control of the Court.”’ Clearly this is not embraced within either of the first two subdivisions of this rule. It is not a real action, replevin or suit on mort- gage; and it is not a case in admiralty. | It can only be argued by plaintiff in error, that it isa case under the third subdivision of the rule. But assuredly such argument can not prevail ; for itis not a case where the proceeds of prop- erty, ora bond for its value, was in the custody or, control of the United States Circuit Court. ‘This undertaking of the Fidelity Company was not taken in or under the direction of the United States Court.