5S6 FEDEBAIi BBPOBTBR. �In re Hincklet, Eeceîver, etc. {Circuit Court, 8. D. Illinois. July 21, 1880.) �1. EECEIVEK— COMPENSATIOlf — JURISDIOTION — KES AdJUDICATA — StATB �AND Fedbbal Couets. — A. was appointee! a receiver of a ratlroad : flrst, under a suit instituted by the stockholders ; and, second, under a suit brouglit by the bond holders of a railroad Company in a state court. The bond holders' suit was subsequently removed to the fed- eral court, where certain questions connected with the compensation of the receiver were referred to a special master, who found a balance due from the receiver, which he was ordered to pay. Upon appeal this order was affli'med by the United States supreme court. There- upon the stockholders' suit, which had been stricken from thodocket of the state court, was re-instated, and the question of the compensa- tion of the receiver referred to a master by the state court, who found a large amount due to the receiver for compensation and necessary ex- penditures. The bond holders took no part, however, in these pro- ceedings in the state court. Hdd, under the circumstances of thia case, that, whcre the receiver had paid into the federal court the amount decreed as due from him in the bond holders' suit, he could not, upon petition to the federal court, have such amount appropri- ated'in part payment of what had been found due to him in the stock- holders' suit by the state court. �A. Biddle Rolerts, for bondbolders. �Higgins, Furber e Cothsan, for Hinkley. �Drtjmmond, C. J. The petitioner was appointed receiver of \he railroad, and took possession of it under the order of the circuit court of McLean county, in the case of Kelly, in December, 1873, in a suit brought by the stockholders of the railroad company. In June, 1875, certain bond holders of the railroad company filed a bill in the circuit court of McLean county, asking for a foreclosure of a trust deed which had been given to secure the bonds. This was a suit independent of the Kelly suit. At the same time, the trustees named in the said deed of trust became parties to the suit brought by the bond holders, and on August 11, 1875, the petitioner was directed to transfer, and did transfer, ail the property in his possession to the trustees. �It would appear that, between the date of the bill filed by the bond holders and the time of this order for the transfer. ����
