
    Goddard v. Ordway.
    1. Where an appeal has been duly taken, the supersedeas which follows from a compliance by the appellant with the act of Congress in that behalf operates to stay the execution of the decree.
    
      2. Where the subject-matter of litigation is the funds in the possession of a receiver, the court below may, notwithstanding the supersedeas, give him the requisite orders for their preservation; but it cannot place them beyond the control of a decree that may be made here.
    3. Should that court, by mistake or otherwise, proceed to carry its decree into effect, its action may be restrained by the appropriate writ from this court.
    Appeal from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.
    On motion for a writ of supersedeas.
    
    
      Mr. F. L. Stanton in support of tbe motion.
    
      Mr. R. T. Merriele and Mr. Creorge F. Appleby, contra.
    
   Mr. Chief Justice WaitIs

delivered the opinion of tbe court.

This was a suit in equity prosecuted by the- appellant to subject to tbe payment of a debt a portion of tbe profits, as they accrued to tbe defendant in' tbe performance of a contract between himself and tbe United States. In the progress of tbe cause in the court below a receiver was appointed to collect from the United States a part of tbe moneys payable to tbe defendant under bis contract, as they fell due, and retain them to await tbe result of the suit. Upon tbe final bearing below tbe bill was dismissed, and from that decree tbis appeal, which operates as a supersedeas, was taken. When tbe supersedeas was perfected, the receiver bad in bis bands about $25,000, invested in United States bonds, which be bad collected under tbe order of tbe court and held subject to its disposal. Tbe appellant fearing, as. be alleges, that an order is' about to be made, directing tbe receiver to pay tbe money in bis bands to tbe defendant, notwithstanding tbe appeal, asks tbe interference of this court for bis protection.

A supersedeas upon tbe appeal of a suit in equity operates to stay tbe execution of tbe decree appealed from. When tbis appeal was taken, the only execution there could be of tbe decree below was tbe collection of tbe cost and tbe delivery to tbe defendant of the fund in court, which is the subject-matter of the litigation. To that end, a further order of the court was asked; but such an order would be in aid of the execution of the decree which has been stayed, and consequently beyond the power of the court to make until the appeal is disposed of. While the court below may make the necessary orders to pre serve the fund, and direct its receiver to that extent, it cannot place the money beyond the control of any decree that may be made here, for that would be to defeat our jurisdiction.

A supersedeas is not obtained by virtue of any process issued by this court, but it follows as a matter of law from a compliance by the appellant with the provisions of the act of Congress in that behalf. We are not required, therefore, to issue any writ to perfect the right of a party to that which the law has given him; but if the court below is proceeding, through mistake or otherwise, to execute its judgment or decree notwithstanding the supersedeas, we niay, under sect. 716, Rev. Stat., issue an appropriate writ to restrain that action, for it would be “ a writ necessary for the exercise of our jurisdiction.” The precise form of the writ to be issued, or relief to be granted, must necessarily depend upon the particular circumstances of any case that may arise. In this case, a rule has been already entered and served upon the court below and its receiver, restraining them from paying over any portion of the fund to the defendant until .the further order of this court. That rule is now in force, and we suppose no further writ will be necessary to give it effect. Motion denied.  