Statement of the case. A third railroad company, called the Milwaukie and St. Paul Company, a rival company of the Milwaukie and Minnesota, whose relation to it will appear in the diagram below, also opposed the discharge. This company was an organization created after the litigation already mentioned, as brought about by the proceedings of Bronson and Soutter to foreclose their mortgage, had commenced. It was no party to preceding suits. It owned the western end of the La Crosse and Milwaukie Railroad; that is to say, the road from Portage to La Crosse (one hundred and five miles), and was organized for the purpose of working a road, as its name imports, from Milwaukie to St. Paul; of course, the ownership and control of an eastern end was indispensable to the purpose. This company had procured, in June, 1863, an order from the District Court, that the receiver should deliver to them the eastern end of this road, and all its appurtenances, and they had used them from that day. This court, however, subsequently declared the proceeding of the District Court to have beer. without Argument for the appellants. jurisdiction, and the order a usurpation of authority.* The interest of this third company was, of course, of a strong character, for the necessities of their situation required that they should own an eastern end of the road, to complete their line from Milwaukie, one great terminus of the road to St. Paul. Mr. Carpenter, for the appellants. 1. The proceedings had in the court below, by which the amount due on the bonds secured by the mortgage to Bronson and Soutter was ascertained and a decree entered, was not according to the direction of the mandate. The decree, indeed, gave the year to pay; but this, and all else that was done, was ordered before and without ascertaining what sum was in the receiver's hands. Now, the authority of the inferior court extends only to executing the mandate sent it. They cannot vary it, or give any other or further relief.t Under that mandate the court was bound "to ascertain the amount of moneys in the hands of the receiver," and its authority to order a sale arose only "IP" the amount was not sufficient to discharge the interest. 2. The appellants complain of the denial of their petition to the Circuit Court, since the cause was remanded, for leave to pay into court all the money due the complainants in this cause, and for possession of the mortgaged premises. It is admitted that this order is not such as might be appealed from before a final decree. But, when an appeal is properly taken from a final decree, as it has been decided that the present one is, the appellant may be relieved from. any interlocutory order or proceeding by which he is aggrieved. The continuance of the receivership until the final decree, or until the amount due the complainants is paid into court, is matter of discretion, and not reviewable here. But after the amount due the complainant had been fixed by a final decree, as that also has been in this court,§ and * Bronson v. La Crosse Railroad Company, 1 Wallace, 405. See supra, p. 440. ? See supra, p. 312. Argument for the appellants. the owner of the equity of redemption offered to pay that amount into court, the discharge of the receiver was demandable as a matter of right; and its refusal was error, which can be reviewed here. The Milwaukie and Minnesota Railroad Company was owner of the equity of redemption. As such, it had the right to redeem all prior incumbrances, and the foreclosure under which it was organized extinguished all liens of a date subsequent to that of the mortgage, on the foreclosure of which it came into existente. It was, therefore, entitled to possession, unless some other person could show better right thereto. Howard's lien was declared by this court to be extinguished.* The language of the Supreme Court is this: "Now it appears that each of these judgments were recovered after the date of the mortgage on the La Crosse and Milwaukie Company, upon the foreclosure of which the Milwaukie and Minnesota Company was formed. The liens of these judgments were cut off by its foreclosure; indeed, the judgment of Howard, of November, 1858, and the last judgment of Graham and Scott, which was recovered in 1860, never were liens upon any interest in the road of the La Crosse and Milwaukie Railroad Company" It will be said that this opinion was delivered under a mistake of fact. Perhaps it was so, and perhaps, in a proper proceeding in his case, it may be found that Howard has a valid subsisting lien; but, on this motion, we must consider the presumption to be the other way, and act accordingly. Chamberlain's opposition demands more respect. He claimed possession under his lease and judgment, which, the case shows, had been vacated by the decree of the District Court. This decree may be erroneous, but cannot be questioned collaterally. It was rendered in a cause in which the complainant, as a judgment creditor, sought to vacate the lease and judgment. * Supra, p. 304. Argument for the appellee. The opposition of the Milwaukie and St. Paul Railroad has no foundation except in selfish interest. The motives of that company to keep the road out of the hands of its true owners, and in the hands of a receiver, interested in his commissions chiefly, are obvious when the topographical position of the rival companies is seen. It is a case where pecuniary motive is as strong as better reasons are weak. Messrs. Cary and Carlisle, contra. 1. The mandate has been as well observed as in the nature of the difficulties it could be. The obligation of an inferior court to obey the order sent it, is not to be followed to the extent of sacrificing the spirit of the order to its letter. The denying the appellant's motion to have the receiver pay the money in his hands into court, to discharge him, and to hand the road over to the Milwaukie and Minnesota Company, is so clearly a matter pertaining to the practice of the court below, and so entirely within the discretion of that court, that we have been surprised to hear counsel of Mr. Carpenter's ability, and regard to what positions he asserts, insist upon his right to appeal from it. Such matters must be left to discretion, if such a thing as discretion is to exist in an inferior court at all. But if this court will consider a matter in which, from the nature of the case, we think it has no good opportunity to form a judgment, then we say that both the judgment of Howard and the claim of Chamberlain should control the question. The receiver was appointed on Howard's motion. This court has, indeed, said that his lien was discharged. Undoubtedly this idea proceeds on a misapprehension of fact. Howard's judgment in the State court against the La Crosse Company was recovered on the 1st day of May, 1858, and became a lien prior to the mortgage under which the Milwaukie and Minnesota Company sprung. This judgment was "sued over" in the Federal court, and judgment obtained there November 28th, 1859; but the record, of course, discloses the original lien of * Supra, p. 304. Opinion of the court. his judgment. The opinion of this court mentions the How ard judgment in the Federal court, but makes no mention of the judgment in the State court upon which the judg ment of the Federal court was founded. Suing over in the Federal court did not extinguish its lien. Chamberlain or Howard--if anybody but the p:esent receiver-should have the road. Chamberlain was a judgment creditor and a lessee of the road. Counsel insist that the effect of that decree in the District Court was to vacate and annul the judgment and lease as to all the world, and that they are now of no force or effect, as between the parties thereto. But such, we apprehend, is not the effect in law. The effect of that decree was but to postpone the lease to the judgment of another party. The Milwaukie and Minnesota Company can claim no advantage from it. The attack on the Milwaukie and St. Paul Railroad Company is gratuitous wholly. Legal rights are not to be denied it, merely because the granting of those rights are necessary to its interests and would greatly promote them. Yet this, in effect, is the argument of the other side. Mr. Justice MILLER delivered the opinion of the court. The first ground assigned for the appeal is, that the decree is a departure from the mandate of the court, because it should not have been rendered until the accounts of the receiver were adjusted, and it was judicially ascertained how much of the millions he had received ought now to be applied to the payment of complainants' interest coupons. This construction of the mandate cannot be sustained. The receiver is the officer of the court, and neither party is responsible for his misfeasance or malfeasance, if any such exists, and it was not, therefore, reasonable that complainants should be delayed in the collection of their debts until the close of a litigation over the receiver's accounts, which might occupy several years. The suit had already been pending four years, and the mandate required the Circuit Court, in its decree nisi, to give another year for the payment of the sum found due. To suppose that this court |