52 FEDERAL izmronrmlt
against him, the Union Trust Company, and others, relating to the fore-
closure and sale, and for alleged inadequacy of price. The latter
charge was abandoned at the hearing, the counsel for the plaintifl .
conceding on the argument that the road sold for all it was worth in
its then condition, and in view of the question of the lien for the
state aid bonds. ‘
The rule is well settled that in the absence of fraud the benefici-
aries in railway mortgages are bound by what is done by their
trustee.
"ln such cases the trustee is in _court for and on behalf of the bene-
ficiaries; and they, though not parties, are bound by the judgment,
unless it is impeached for fraud or collusion between him and the
adverse party. The principle which underlies this rule has always
been applied in proceedings relating to railway mortgages where a
trustee holds the security for the benefit of the bondholders/’ Ker-
risou v. Stewart, 93 U. S. 155, 160. "The trustee of a railroad mort-
gage represents the l bondholders in all legal proceedings carried
on by him affecting his trust, to which they are not actual parties,
and whatever binds him, if he acts in good faith, binds them. If a
bondholder not a party to the suit can under any circumstances bring
a bill of review, he can only have such relief as the trustee would be
entitled to in the same form of proceeding." Shaw v. Railroad Co.
100 U. S. 605, 611. Although the bill charges fraud in general
terms upon the trustee, in connection with the foreclosure suit, there
is not a syllable of evidence to support the charge.
One point much relied on at the hearing to support the bill was
that the bill to foreclose was filed bythe trustee without the written
request of the holders of one-third in amount of the bonds then out~
~ standing, as required bythe twelfth article of the mortgage; and that
the decree requiring the payment of the principal sum of the mort-
" gage debtwas therefore erroneous. The late cases of the Chicago, D.
et V. R. Oojv. F0sdick,1Sup.Ct.Rep. 10, United States supreme court,
· ·are cited in support of this contention. The ruling in those cases does
not aid the plaintiffs case, for several reasons: (1) The mortgage
in the case at bar contains an important provision on the subject
which was not contained in the mortgage under consideration in the
cases cited, and which would seemto authorize all that was done by
the trustee, and the decree of the court for the whole debt. (2) lt
` was undoubtedly competent for the trustee to file a bill to foreclose
for the interest actually due, and that largely exceeded in amount the
tvalue-of thetroad. (3) The railroad company does not complainof