opinion that he is not. The parties in this court who had an interest in the property are not bound by the action of the state court in allowing this compensation to the receiver. In fact, the compensation which was due to the receiver for the services that he had performed came up as a question before the master appointed by this court, and the master made him a certain allowance for his services, which was sanctioned by this court in the order made, from which he took an appeal to the supreme court of the United States. He took possession of the property in December, 1873, and turned it over to the trustees on August 12, 1875.
The master of this court allowed him $10,000 for his services as receiver, and after the property has come into this court, and after this court has passed upon the compensation which should be allowed him, and that whole question has been determined, to allow him to go to the state court, re-instate the case of Kelly, and ask for and obtain the action of the state court as to his compensation, and then come into this court and request it to treat this as res adjudicata and binding in this court, under the circumstances, would certainly be carrying the principle further than any precedent that I ever heard of would sanction. The object has been so obviously for the purpose of obtaining money from this court which he has once reluctantly and under compulsion paid under its order, that I cannot do otherwise than dismiss the petition.
Crane, Breed & Breed v. The City Ins. Co.
(Circuit Court, S. D. Ohio.———, 1880.)
