PABMBRS' LOAN <fe TRUST CO. V. 0. B. & M. B. 00. 101 �(7) That the court cotild require, upon the subsequent presenta- tion of intervening daims, as a condition precedent to the confir- mation of the sale, that the pui-chaser should make a larger cash pay- ment to meet ail exigencies than that flxed by the tenns of the decree. �(8) That a question as to an adverse title to a part of the mort- gaged premises, pending between the receiver of the railroad and a third partj, did not seem to be one that could be litigated in a suit to foreclose the mortgage. �(9) That the deniai of the railroad's title would divest the peti- tioner of ail right to object to the decree and foreclosure proceedings, upon the ground that such third party was not ruade a defendant to the foreclosure suit. �(10) That where, upon default, a majority of the bondholders had requested the trustee to institute foreclosure proceedings, the mere fact that certain bondholders, including the president of the railroad, retained counsel for the Company for the purpose of procuring serv- ice of process of subpœna in a genuine action to foreclose these valid mortgages, given to secure a just debt, did not constitute a fraud upon the petitioner, although she had no knowledge at the time of such action by said bondholders. �(11) That an agreement entered into between the bondholders for the proposed reorganization of the road could only be considered, under the petition, to the estent that the particular interests of the peti- tioner might be involved ; and that under this restriction no such grounds of objection to the agreement were presented, or such prob- able injury to the petitioner shown, as made the petition sustainable. �(12) That it was a serions question whether the petitioner had not been guilty of laches in presenting such petition nearly two years after the decree had been flied, and within a few days before the sale was advertised to take place, without any averments in the petition that would seem to sufflciently excuse the delay. �(13) That the petition did not allege that the petitioner had any interest in the second-mortgage bonds secured by the flrst mortgage, or that the mortgaged property was of sufflcient value to pay more than the flrst-mortgage bonds, or contain any allegation whatever as to the value of the mortgaged property, and that therefore it was not certain that the petitioner, as the holder of the bonds described in her petition, had any real interest in the subject-matter of the contro- versy. — [Ed �In Equity. �Finches, Lynde e Miller, for petitioner. �E. G. de W. C Larned, contra. �Dybe, D. J. On the twenty-third day of January, 1878, the complainant in the above-entitled cause, as trustee for bondholders, filed a bill in this court to foreclose two mort- gages on the railroad and property of the defendant company, ��� �
