ooANN v. ATLANTA COTTON moron co. 7
suit until after the decree of foreclosure was granted. When they
were informed of the decree of foreclosure they were advised by coun- ·
sel that there was doubt about the validity of the titleto the mort-
gaged premises, as the trustees were not made parties, and as some
of the bondholders were not parties. A
The aiiidavits of Zephaniah Clarke and C. C. Cornell show that T
they are holders and owners of nrst-mortgage bonds of the defendant,
and have not been made parties to the suit, and that they knew noth-
ing about these proceedings until after the sale herein; the interest
on their bonds having been regularly paid to April 1, 1882. '
Mr. Warner’s affidavit is much to the same effect, showing his ig-
norance of a foreclosure suit until after the granting of the decree,
and that he took such steps as he could to protect the interests of his
clients, the brothers Landauer, who were not made parties to the
· suit, but that owing to the fact that the title under the sale was ques-
. tionable, and that the amount of receiver’s certificates were unascer· .
tained, the bondholders did not make a bid. ”
Mr. Webb’s aindavit shows that the purchasers, on the sale of July
6th, purchased with notice of trustees’ rights and claims in the mat- i
ter; that a large number of the first-mortgage bondholders were not
parties to the proceedings; and that, as he is informed and believes, »
there wasno default in the payment of the interest on the bonds.
The mortgaged premises were sold July 6, 1882, for $101,000, to
Samuel H. Coffin, who is one of the Erm of Coffin, Altemus & Co.,
which Erm holds irst-mortgage bonds to a large extent, and are
complainants in suit, and also own the entire issue of $100,000 of
second-mortgage bonds. W. E. McCoy values the mortgaged prop-
erty at $200,000; William C. Langley values it at at least $150,000.
The case comes up at this time on a motion by Freeman Clarke
and Henry B. Plant, surviving trustees, made at the term of court at
which the decree of sale was rendered, asking that the sale made be
set aside for inadequate price, and that the consent decree rendered
be vacated to allow them, as representing all the nrst-mortgage bond-
holders, to be made parties to allege and prove default in the pay-
ment of the interest due on the bonds, and to obtain a decree of
foreclosure that will bind and protect all the parties interested in the
first-mortgage bonds or the trust estate. A consideration of the
entire case satisfies me that this motion should be granted. To reach
this conclusionit is not necessary to determine that the proceedings
had in the case have been irregular and void. ,