UNION MUT. LIFE INS. COi V, UNIVEBBITY OF OHIOAGO. 447 �question is, what is the effect of that? After these two bills were filed the plaintifif in this court came into court, and, on the twelfth instant, filed a supplemental bill alleging the facts of the litigation in the state court : that a bill was there filed for the purpoBo named, and giving a copy of the bill ; also alleging that Stephen A. and Eobert M. Douglas, heirs at law of Mr. Douglas, the donor of this land to the university, had interposed in the state court and become defendants, and filed a croBs-bill for the protection of any equities they may have, on the ground, as I understand, that in consequence of the failure on the part of the Chicago University to perform an alleged trust, the property bas reverted to the heirs of the donor. �It is undoubtedly a very embarrassing state of litigation, there being two guits brought in two jurisdictions, involying to a great extent the same subject-matter, and I have felt some difficulty in determining what is the true rule upon this subject, but I have corne to the conclusion that it must be this : That this court has a right to go on, as I have already said, and decide all questions which legitimately flow out of the subject-matter of controversy in this case, namely, those affecting the existence of the mortgage and the right of the University of Chicago to make it, so as to reach a decree, if the case warrants it, which shall be conclusive upon the University of Chicago; that is to say, which shall prevent that corporation from ever setting up any claim or right to this property, or any claim whatever that it had not the right to execute this mortgrge. That is as far as I think it is necessary, and to that estent I think it is the duty of the court, to go. In this case is involved the fact of the making of the mortgage, the right of the University of Chicago to execute it, and the right of the court to make a decree which shall foreclose all the equities of the University of Chicago. In one sense it is true that a proceeding by foreclosure does not necessarily involve the absolute or indefeasible title to the land. The object is to foreclose whatever equity the mortgagor may have in the land. It may happen that there is a paramount title in a third party which need not be de- ��� �
