F.2d at 1145 (citing Penn Gen. Casualty Co. v. Pennsylvania, 294 U.S. 189, 195, 55 S.Ct. 386, 79 L.Ed. 850 (1935)). The purpose of the doctrine is to promote comity between courts, Penn General, 294 U.S. at 195, 55 S.Ct. 386, and to avoid the “logical and practical difficulty of two courts simultaneously vying for possession or control of the same property.” United States v. $79,123.49, 830 F.2d 94, 97 (7th Cir.1987). “Where the assertion of jurisdiction by the two courts is nearly simultaneous, it becomes important, as in the present case, to determine the precise time when the jurisdiction attaches.” Penn General, 294 U.S. at 196, 55 S.Ct. 386. The sine qua non of in rem jurisdiction is seizure, control, or custody of the res. See, e.g., Penn General, 294 U.S. at 196, 55 S.Ct. 386 (<HOLDING>); Donovan v. City of Dallas, 377 U.S. 408, 412,
holding there is no meaningful distinction between due course and due process holding jeopardy attaches when the guilty plea is accepted holding that jurisdiction attaches when a complaint is filed and process subsequently issues in due course holding jeopardy attaches when jury is empanelled and sworn holding that there is no due process right to appellate review