— DWIGHT v. smrru. 51
the parties secured their bonds is not material; and where there has accrued a
large amount of money applicable and not applied on the bonds after satisfy-
ing prior liens, the bondlioldersare entitled to relief against those having the
money.
In Equity.
Francis H. Brooks and Edward J. Phelps, for orators.
Daniel Roberts, for defendants. v
Wnnanna, D. J .‘ This cause has now been heard on demurrer to ‘
the amended bill. The bill states many things not material or per-
tinent to the case actually made, and many conclusions of law, with-
out the facts leading to such conclusions. As it is, however, it shows
in substance that the orators are severally holders, to a large amount
in all, of the first-mortgage bonds of the Vermont Central Railroad;
that the trustees of the mortgaged estate for the bondholders have
been inpossession of the property for a long time, and received there-
° from money applicable to the bonds, and have not paid it over to the
bondholders, but have diverted it to their own private uses, or other-
wise, and have, in alleged violation of their trust, turned over the
property to the Central Vermont Railroad Company, of which the
trustees are leading officers and stockholders, and which has also i
received money therefrom applicable to the bonds and not paid over, _
whereby the trustees have become hostile in interest to the bond-
holders. The trustees, the Central Vermont Railroad Company, and
the officers of that company actively engaged in the management of
the property, are all made defendants. ·
The principal questions raised bythe demurrer and not before dis-
posed of in this litigation, either in this case or some other, are
whether the orators can properly unite in bringing and maintaining
· _ this bill; whether they show any right to relief without showing that
they were owners of the bonds at the time when the avails of the
property applicable to the bonds accrued; and whether the bill shows
any suihcient ground for relief. ’
It is doubtless true, as has been now argued and before held in this ·
case, that when money applicable to the payment of the bonds has
come to the handsgof the trustees for the bondholders, each holder at
·that time became immediately entitled to the share of the money
applicable to his bond, and could immediately recover the same to
himself. If nothing wasinvolved but the 'recovery from the trustees
of such money, the right of eachtbondholder to theshare of` the
'money belonging to him wouldtbe several, and exclusive of- the other