Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/849

 ANDREWS V. SMITH. 837 �a court or otherwise; that possession has been changed to other hands, as the pleadings show. Neither is the suit such an one as would affeet the possession of the property in any way. It is merely a suit in personam for an account of moneys. Still, the property from which these moneys arose was for a time in the hands of the defendants, as reeeivers of the state court, for the purpose of raising fonds to be applied under the direction of that court. As such reeeivers, they were officers of the court; their possession was the posses- sion of the court ; the f unds realized were to be paid into the court, or disposed of under the direction of the court; and this jurisdiction over the reeeivers, the property, and the funds necessarily drew to it the decision of every question concerning the reeeivers in that capacity, the possession of the property during that time, and the disposition of the funds realized. Anon. 6 Ves. 287; Angel v. Smith, 9 Ves. 335; Booth V. Clark, 17 How. 322. �So, if this receivership covered the period of the account- ing now sought, that court has the claim of the orators to the funds realized pending before it, that litigation is so far identical with this litigation here, and that court, and not this, has jurisdiction of it. In Peck v. Jenness, 7 How. 612, Mr. Justice Grier said: "It is a doctrine of law too long established to require citation of authorities that when a court has jurisdiction it has a right to decide every question which occurs in the cause, and, whether its decision be correct or otherwise, its judgment, till reversed, is regarded as bind- ing in every other court." �The counsel for the orators insist that the receivership did not continue after the compromise, agreoment, and decree, so as to cover the period in question, and that there was no proceeding pending in the state court during that time which would involve this question between the bondholders and their trustees; and the counsel for the defendants insist that there was such a judicial administration of this property during ail that time as to involve this claim of the orators, and preclude the jurisdiction of ail other courts. The deter- mination of this question depends upon the true construction ����