8 FEDERAL amoarma.
It may well be that all the persons who have made themselves
parties, or who have come in since the sale asking for payment of
their bonds, are bound by the decree. And yet it may be said that
a close inspection of the pleadings and proceedings had in the case
shows that the original bill, giving it its fullest scope, is not one for
foreclosure; that it shows no grounds looking to a foreclosure, except
the allegation that the mortgagor is going to default; that in only
one application of a boudholder to be allowed to join the complain-
ant is there any allegation that there had been default in paying
the interest; that only the original bill was notice to the defendant
who made no appearance; that the decree pro confesso entered
against the defendant goes only to the allegations of the original
bill; and that there is no proof in the case by confession or other-
wise, except affidavit offered on this hearing, that there had been
any default or breach of contract that would warrant a decree of
foreclosure. Nor is it necessary to determine whether or not all the
bondholders, or else the trustees to represent them, must be made
parties in order to obtain a valid foreclosure of a trust deed. The —
law of Georgia which controls the effect of the trust deed which is
the foundation of this case, to the effect that "a mortgage,is only
security for a debt and passes no title," may well make it a vexed
question in this state as to how far it may be necessary for trustees
of a trust mortgage to be made parties in the foreclosure of the
mortgage granted by the trust deed._ 'It is clear that the bondholders
who have not been made parties are not bound by the decree.
The equity rules that allow suits to be brought by some complainants
for the benefit of all, expressly reserve the rights of absent parties.
See Equity Rules 47 and 48. The absent bondholders are not quasi
parties, as they would have been had the trustees been made parties
to the suit. See Campbell v. Railroad Oo. 1 Woods, 377, 378. It
follows that, as the absent bondholders are not bound by the decree,
they may inaugurate new proceedings, involving a foreclosure and a
review of what has been done. The parties who have joined in this A
case, but who now insist that the trustees shall be joined, are also in
a position to keep the case before the court. The purchaser at the sale
made, who is also a bondholder and party, takes no full title to what
the decree purports to sell. The remedy, then, given by the decree in
this case is not full and complete, even as to the partiesbefore the
court, and the litigation is not ended. ·
The proposition is to open the case, (the proceedings still being in
jferl,) to allow proper parties to be made, so as to grant full relief and