52 mnnnu. amroarms. .
bondholders, and the suits would necessarily be separate, and prob-
ably would be required to be at law and not in equity. As this bil]
~ stands, the money accruing to the bondholders has not for along time
been paid over to the bondholders, but has remained in the hands of
the trustees, unaccounted for to the bondholders and belonging to the
body of them, as security for the bonds, which are the original debt of
another party. The mortgaged property itself is also involved, in
` which all the bondholders have a common interest, and to which
neither has any separate right exclusive of the others.
The question whether the trustees, or those who have received the
trust property from the trustees, are chargeable for it, or its avails,
and to what extent as to either or both, is or may be involved; and
in that all the bondholders have common concern, and upon familiar
principles of equity procedure not only properly can, but ought to,
join in proceedings for the prosecution and protection of their com-
mon rights.
So far as reaching the avails of the property in money which has
come to the hands of the trustees is concerned, if the action was at
law, where judgment could only be recovered for a certain sum, in
y which allthe plaintiffs shall have a common right, the orators could
_ not recover upon the case made, for the bill does not show that they
all were holders of bonds for any one space of time, so that all would
have a common right to any of the money. But proceedings in equity
are much more flexible and capable of being adapted to the exigencies
V of the case, and when all the rights are adjusted the particular rights
of each can be decreed to them as they may appear entitled to them.
The question whether the bondholders, who have acquired their
i bonds since money in the hands of the trustees ·applicable to the
bonds accrued, are entitled to share in that money, depends upon the .
nature of the right, and of the transaction by which they acquired
_ the bonds. The bonds are the debt of the Vermont Central Railroad
Company, and not of the trustees. The property in the hands of
the trustees was there for security of the debt, and `a11 avails of it
which came to their hands came there for .the same purpose. It was
all security for, and incident to, the debt, which was the principal thing.
- The principal draws to itself the accessories. This is very applicable
to secured debts. When the debts pass, the securities pass also, unless
— some contrary intention of the parties to the transaction is shown.
No contra1·y_intention appears here._ The holders of these bonds are
therefore, so far as is now apparent, atleast, entitled to all the