POTTER VS. KERR. 879

cause to this court with directions to dismiss it, after recalling
the funds from the receiver. But this was not done, the direc-
tion being to proceed, as the nature of the cause, and the rights
and equities of the parties, may require.

The parties to the record before the Court of Appeals, were
Moses Potter vs. Edward M. Kerr, and it may be that the
court decided the cause upon the ground, that upon that record
they could only regard the rights of those parties inter se; and
there being as between them no partnership, there was no foun-
dation for the orders appealed from.

It must have been manifest to the Court of Appeals, how-
ever, that there were creditors of the house to a large amount,
for that appeared by the pleadings; and it must have been
equally obvious to that tribunal, that Kerr was insolvent, and
that claiming the sole ownership of the property, he insisted
upon his right to apply the effects to the payment of debts due
from him, not connected with or growing out of the business
of the house; and this may have been the reason why the bill
was not dismissed, or the record remanded to this court, with
directions to dismiss it, after the property should be taken out
of the hands of the receiver.

The Court of Appeals may have considered, that the credi-
tors not being parties to the cause before that court, the orders
passed by this court, which were designed for their protection,
could not be supported; but that seeing there were creditors to
a large amount, who might become parties at a subsequent
stage of the cause, and whose rights would be jeoparded by
restoring the property to Kerr, it was deemed right, instead of
pronouncing a final judgment, to send the case back to this
court for such further proceedings as the interests of the credi-
tors might require, and to give them an opportunity of coming
in and being heard.

This view of the subject borrows strength from the disposi-
tion which the appellate court made of the subject of costs.
They award the appellant the costs incurred by. him upon the
appeal, and in the Court of Appeals; but leave undecided the
question of costs in this court, which it is fair to infer, would