CALHOUN v. sr. LOUIS et s. E. mz. G0. 9
settle the rights of all parties interested. It also seems clear from the
evidence that the apprehensions of some _of the bondholders, and their ..
proceedings at the sale, have thrown such a cloud upon the title to
be given under the decree rendered as to justify the finding that the
price offered at the sale is inadequate. The atlidavits Bled go to this
extent. On this point nothing is left, then, for the court to do but refuse
to confirm the sale and set the same aside. That being done, there are `
no good reasons against, and many good reasons in favor of, vacating
the decree to allow new parties to be made, a proper case proved, and
a new decree to be rendered, thatwill do full equity to all parties me
end the litigation in the premises. No damage canresult but by
delay, and no great delay can result, as a new decree can be rendered
at this term andthe property at once offered for sale. In vacating
the decree and allowing new parties to be made, the court can and will
make such terms as will result in speeding the cause and procuring a
speedy sale ofthe property. J ‘
s Cannons and others v. Snr. Louis & Sourumsrmnu BY. Co. '
l (Consolidated) and others.
(Circuit Court, D. Indiana. March, 1880.)
ltnnnoan LI0RTGAGE—]!1ORECL0SURE—PREFERRED Cmnis.
On a bill filed by the trustees to foreclose a consolidated mortgage, where
there had been prior mortgages on different parts of the consolidated road, the
net earnings of the road are to be applied primarily to the payment of the
employes of the company, and of the amounts due for supplies and ma-
terials furnished; and it`, instead of making these payments, the earnings
aredirected either to the payment of what is due to the mortgagees, or for im-
. provements or betterments placed upon the road, that constitutes a valid claim
against the corpus, the property in the hands of the court, which it is the duty
of the court to see enforced.
z
In Equity.
Judd ei- Whitehouse, Blufard Wilson, and Asa ai J. E. Iglchafrt, for
complainants. ' “ .
Scholes cé Mather, for defendants.
Dammonn, C. J. This was a bill Bled in the fall of 1874, by the
trustees, to foreclose a consolidated mortgage. There had been prior
mortgages on different parts of the consolidated line of road, and the
parties interested in those prior mortgages (the bondholders) were
made defendants in January, 1876. Pending the litigation, various