The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1878-10-26

ABOUT THE p1ISBss BUT 1hE< b0ASh
GET SUBSTANTIALLY WHAT THEY
AsKEp-THE DECREE URGED BY THE
ENGLISH UNDER DIsSECTloN-A LITTLE
QUESTION OF TWO MILLION DOLLARS
ATToRNEY-GENERAI.F FIELD WANTS THE
STATES INTERESTS ,PRoTECTED-egJEc
TONS TO THE DECREE.
At half-past 10 O'Clock yesterday morning
Judges Bond and Hughes resumed thell
places upon the bench Of the United States
| Circuit Court. There was large attend.
| ance OF lawyers, aud as Judge Bond pro-
ceeded to handle his papers as il about to
render decision, they drew near to him,
and heard him read the following:
Parish Us. Skiddy, Duncan d. Co.:
| The defendants Of record in this cause on
the 9th day Of September, 1871, executed q
mortgage OF their railroad and effects to the
complainants TO secure the payment OF Ger.
| tain bonds mentioned therein and the inter.
est thereon as it fell due. There was default
in the interest. and the complainants, the
mortg brought suit to foreclose the
mortgage. Everything has proceeded regu-
| larly from time to time without complaint
on the part OF the ceStui cue trust under
the mortgage until the fling OF the petition
now under consideration, which is peti.
| tion by certain OF the bondholders, alleging
that they should be made parties to the suit,
The reasons given for this request are:
1st. That the petitioners are committee
known as the Amsterdam committee for the
protection Of the rights OF the consolidated
| bondholders OF the defendant company BY
which is meant thar they are bondholders
under the mortgage to the complainants or
their representatives.
The petition then alleges tnat these pro-
ceed,nss on the part of the trustees were
commenced by minority OF the bondhold'
ers, but il does not seek on that account to
dismiss them, nor does it alege that the
proceedings were taken against their OBJ
| lection or wishes.
They allege that for the protection OF their
interests they have appointed counsel to
represent them in this country, and that
they hold one half OF the bonds, or nearlY
so, under the mortgage above mentioned,
and that, not being parties TO the suit upon
record. they do not receive notice OF the
proceedings as they go on from the trustees
or their counsel and they pray that they
NAV be made parties to the suit in order
that they may take part in the proceedings
in the cause as it progresses from timc 10
time.
This petition was filed OH the 2lst OF De-
cember, 1877, and was signed by James Z.
Parrish, who was not alleged in it to be
bondholder nor the counsel for any such IN
| this court.
Upon April 4, 1877, another petition was
| filed amending the first, already referred to.
In this amended petition it is aleged-tirst,
that certain proceedings have been had
heretofore between the bondholders repre-
sented by committee Of the Amsterdam
committee with like body representing
English boDdho!ders at London, and after
a long recital Of interviews between the
parties OF bondhoders-the one in Eng
land and the other in Amsterdam
respecting a Reorganization Of the de-
fendant company. it states they could not
agree upon a plan for such reOrganlza'
ton, and that the English bondho!derS
had the aid Of the counsel Of the complain
ants in drawing up and advocating thell
plan of reorganization, in opposition to
that of the German bondhOlders; and il
further alleges that the English bondhold.
ers, through their agent, had advertised
that their plan OF Reorganization had the
approval Of the receivers of the road and OF
the counsel Of the trustees OF the mortgage,
the complainants in this suit.
It is alleged that the agent OF these Eu.
ropean bondholders applied to the trustees
under the mortgage to be supplied with
copies OF the papers filed from time to time
in the cause, and that they have not done so,
and have refused so to do. And it is charged
that the trustees are carrying on the suit III
furtherance of the plans Of the English
bondholders without reference to those OF
the German bondholderS or their commit
tee. and the PRAYER is that they may be made
parties to the suit.
It is nowhere alleged in this petition, ori'
ginal OF amended, that the trustees or thcil
counsel, so far as this suit has progressed
have not acted for the benefit Of all the
bondholders under the mortgage without
partiality or prejudice. No single act OF
the trustees IN the conduct Of the suit is re.
ierred to as detrimental or in antagonism tc
the interest Of the petitioners. Nor Is the
Court asked, on account OF their negligence
fraud, or incompetency, to remove then
and give to the petitioners or the bond
r. holders the conduct OF the suit.
The sole objection is that among tht
, bondhoders themselves there has arisen {
!. dispute respecting the reorganization of th
: defendant company, and that the trustee
or their counsel have, in consultation witt
such bondholdcrs as they have had acces
to, given preference to the plan OF one part
OF the bondholderS rather than to that o
the other.
No allegation is made, however, that thj
preference has been expressed in any pro
: ceedings taken in court, or that it has intiu
enced in any way the conduct OF the suit OF
the part OF the trustees.
OF course in every cause in equity all tn
parties in interest must be made parties l.
the suit, but in the case OF Richards Us. Th
Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad this Cour
has already held that to foreclose mortgag
, given by railroad company to trustees t
secure the payment Of bonds and coupon
mentioned in it, as they mature, the trustee
are the only necessary parties to the suit
that the proper parties to be defendants ar
the parties who hold or claim in opposition
to them is equally clear.
In order, therefore, to disturb the right
OF the trustees to bring and conduct thi
suit, in which they represent every bond
. holder known to the mortgage, at the IN
stance Of such bondholder, it must b
shown to the Court that the trustees hav
done, or contemplate doing, in the caus
some act which will be detrimental to th
interest OF such bondholder or set OF bond
/ holders. This is not averred or proved il
the matter Of this petition. 1t is alleged
that the trustees have approved plan OF re
organization proposed by one set OF bond
holders rather than another. But the Cour
cannot consider any proceedings among tht
bondhoiders OR trustees which are not tht
subject OF proceedings in this court and thi:
cause; so that until it Is proved, as it is mol
now asserted, that the trustees under this
mortgage ought not. by reason Of negli.
gence, fraud, or incompetency, to conduct
this suit, the petitioners have no right te