844 FEDEBAIi BEPOBTEE. �selves had accomplished the discharge. ïïad any party insisted upon their continuing as receivers as against the bondholders, the request oould not well have been granted. �In Davis v. Duke of Marlboroiigh, 2 Swanst. 113, a receiver of the rents of an estate to raise funds to keep down an an- nuity, on the acceptance by the annuitant of the price of the annuity, was refused to be continued at the request of other parties. R. Co. v. Soutier, 2 Wall. 510, is to the same effect. �TJnless the court of chancery had jurisdiction of this mat- ter, because these funds were in the custody of that court, the accounting being had is not, upon any mode of procedure, to bind those not expresaly parties to it. Courts must act according to established modes of procedure in due course ; and outside of these modes their judgments and decrees are not binding as such. Windsor v. McVeigk, 93 U. S, 274. �The original bill is the only proceeding, according to the established mode of procedure, affecting this part of the case in the court of chancery, and the scope of that bill did not include payment to the bondholders. F. e C. R. Co. v. V. C. R. Co. 50 Vt. 500. �These bondholders bring this bill against the defendants as their trustees,. alleging the receipt of moneys belonging to the bondholders not acoounted for to them. That they are ac- counting to some other person elswhere does not seem to be any good reason for not anawering this bill. �The principal ground of demurrer appears to be that the lessor, the Vermont & Canada Eailroad Company, is not made a party to the bill. As the claim of the orators is now understood, there seems to be no ground for joining that party. The orators do not set up any claim in opposition to those of that company. They admit its prior right to the rent to the full extent, but set up that, after yielding to that right and satisfying it, these sums have remained in the hands of the trustees of the orators belonging to the orators, and they ask an accounting only for the amounts so remain- ing. The case in this respect, as well as in some others, is like Payne v. Hook, 7 Wall. 425, where a non-resident dis- tributee of an estate brought a bill in the circuit court of the ����
