112 JFEDEBAIi EKPOBTEK. �interests of the petitioner. But it is not perceived how or •wherein they could operate to her in jury; and, moreover, the trathfulness of those admissions is nowhere denied or ques- tioned in the present petition. �I, have examined witb care the cases cited by petitioner's counsel : Lord v. Veazie, 8 How. 251 ; Gaines v. Hennen, 24 How. 55S ; Wood Paper Co. v. Heft, 8 Wall. 334; Cleveland T. Chamberlain, 1 Black, 419; and Forrest v. M., S., d L, Ry. Co. 65 Eng. Ch. Eep. 125. This opinion has been already extended to such length thati forbear to enter upon a review of those cases further than to say that I deem them upon tbeir facts, and in the prinoiples they involve, inapplicabk to the case at bar. �6. Ineorporated in the petition is a copyof the bondholders* agreement and proposed plan of reorganization of the Green Bay & Minnesota Eailroad Company, wbich, it is alleged, Blair and Dodge and their associates seek to consummate to the alleged detriment and injury of other bondholders and of stoek- holders. I have been somewhat at a loss to determine just the extent to which this extrinsic matter should be considered by the court as bearing upon the validity of the proceedings in the foreclosure suit, or as affording ground for the petitioner to file a bill of review. Certainly it can only be considered to the extent that the particular interests of the petitioner may be involved. The agreement appears to be a voluntary one, and ail holders of bonds, second as well as first mort- gage bonds, with certain stoekholders of the company, are permitted to participate in it. The provisions are such as, I believe, are usual in such agreements. The plan of reorgan- ization contemplates the issue of first and second mortgage bonds, and of preferred and common stock, by a new com- pany, and provides for the exchange, on certain terms and at certain rates, of bonds and stock of the old company for bond» and stock of the new. Such equality of footing as may ren- der secure the varions interests of the parties who may enter into the arrangement, appears to be accorded to different classes of bondholders and stoekholders; and on the whole, in considering this branch of the case, I do no not think that ��� �
