[Reusens SCOTUS Case (1885)] It is not an undertaking for the ralue of property in the custody or control of that ourt, | (4.) It may be well doubted whether those who wrote this 2uth rule ever intended the third subdi- vision to refer to anything other than cases under admiralty process; for the third subdivision of this rule is well satisfied by limiting the meaning ‘of the words * proce@aéthereof,” to proceeds. of property sold under such process ; and the words ‘a bond for the value thereof ’’ tc the bond given by the respondent, when his property has been seized under a libel. ‘This construction is indeed all the more natural and reasonable when it is remembered that this 29th rule in its present form was promulgated in I867, five years prior to the passage of the Act of 11 | Jongress of June 1st, 1872 (17 U. S. Stat. at Large, p. 196), in the sixth section whereof express power wis, for the first time, conferred upon the Circuit and District Courts to issue attachments when al- lowed by the laws of the different States. See United States vs. Stevenson, 1 Abbott’s U.S. R., 495.