Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/220

 court took a different view. Suppose, as was held by this court, that one distributee, and there may be a large number, comes in and takes out of the administration of the probate court the settlement of ail of the affairs pertaining to a particular estate, and it is determined by a proceeding in this court that he is entitled to a given sum of money, as remaining after payment of ail the lawful demands against the estate, a pro rata of which belongs to the particular party. The next day another distributee cornes in, and so on, ad infinitum. He is not a party to the original proceeding; he is an entirely different party, res inter allios acta. The supreme court said, in the first case of Payne v. Hook: Very well; judgment having been rendered for an accounting in one case, the other distributees may come in by a supplemental proceeding and become parties thereto, whereby, on final determination and settlement, the gross amount subject to distribution may be determined and then divided. This court pursued that course under the mandate of the supreme court. The other distributees came in in a supplemental way. Objections were interposed, and the matter again went to the supreme court, and they then said that was entirely wrong; it could not be done.

It may be considered that the two cases of Payne v. Hook decide nothing. They are not in accord with each other, nor with the uniform rulings of the supreme court of the United States theretofore. Hence the broad principle remains—under the constitution and laws of the country, and of the rulings of the supreme court of the United States in connection therewith—that whatever tribunal, state or federal, law- fully has possession of the res of an estate it shall proceed to the full administration thereof, without interference by an- other tribunal. The state courts are not-bound to accept any orders of the federal courts in regard to their mode of determining matters rightfully before them; just as this court would repel any interference by the state courts with the res or an estate in its custody. It must suffice, therefore, that the motion for execution find an order on the receiver of to court.