AÎÎDEEWS V. SMITH. 843 �where it was overruled. Mr. Justice McLean, in deliverisg the opinion of the court, afterstating some defeets in the plea in setting ont the proceedings in the state court, said: "But if the plea had been perfect in this respect it would net fol- low that the complainant could not invoke the iurisdiction of the circuit court. He, being a non-resident, has his option to bring his suit in that court, unless he has submitted, or is made a party in some form to the special -jurisaiction of the court of common pleas." "No suit seoms to be pending'in the common pleas. The action of the assignees appears to be voluntary, for their own justification, and not in obedi- ence to the order of the court. By the statute any person interested may, on application to the court, obtain a citation to the assignees to appear and answer. But this is nothing more than the ordinary exercise of a chancery power to coni- pel them to aocount." �The situation of these defendants, as to accounting to the court of chancery, is very much like that of those there as to accounting to -the court tberë. When the compromise agreement was made the trustees were, as hais been before stated, in possession, and were also receivers to raise the rent due the lessor from the income. That agreement inade pro- vision for ail rent then due, and provided a ùew basis for it thereafter, for certain specifie payments, and for the appli- cation of the residue of the net income; and then that "ail claims and demanda between the parties hereto, not herein otherwise provided for, shail be waived and' abandbned, and no f urther claim or prôceeding shall be made or had in respect thereto." The agreement was carried into effect, but the trustees were not otherwise formally discharged as receivers, and because they were not formally discharged it is said that the receivership continued. But a receiver is the hand of the court, and whatever property he holds is held for the court. After that agreement there was no property left in the cus- tody of the court for a receiver to have. The parties had provided for the custody and disposition of the prOpeirty, and left nothing for the court to do about it. There was no oc- casion for the court to discTi'arge them, for the parties them- ����
