là' Re • HINCKLeY. 5W �the receiversBîp had feeeù extended over from the-euît by the- stockholders to that of the bond holders, aûd'he beôame ^ereby receiver in bôth suits. On December 12, 1875, the bond hold- ers' suit was removed to thls court, leaving the Kelly Case in the circuit court of McLean county. After this had taken place, the circuit court of the United States referred to a special- master certain questions connected with the compensation' of the receiver, and the amount that was due from Mm ; and the master made a report to the court, finding a balance due' from the receiver, which he was ordered to pay. From this order Hinckley appealed to the supreme court of the United States, and that court affirmed the order of the circuit court. 100 U. S. 153. �In the meantime the case of Kelly in the state court had been striken from the dooket, but was re-instated after the affirmance of the decree of this court by the supreme coutt of the United States. Of course, when the case of the bond holders was transferred from the state to the federal court, ail of the property of the railroad company was administered in and became subject to the order of the lattef court. 'After the case of Kelly had been re-instated in the circuit court of McLean county, the accounts of Hinckley, with the question' of the compensation to be allowed for his services, w'às referred ' to a special master, who repbrted to the state court, iindiiig ^24,535.80 due to the receiver fOr his services, ' and $1,000 for money necessarily paid out by him in the business of the receivership, which report was afterwards con- firmed by the state court. Neither the bond holders, nor the trustees, nor any of their counsel took any part in these pro- ceedings in the Kelly, Case touching the compensation of the receiver, before the state court, or before the special master to whom the matter had been referred. �It is upon this state of f acts that the petitioner now applies to this court, he having paid into court the amount decreed by this court as due from him; that this sum shall be appro- priated in part payment of what bas been found due to him by the state court, and the question is whether he is entitled to the order of this court for that purpose. I am clearly of ����
