Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/570

 662 FEDEEAL EEPOBTEfi. �in substance, so that the case is now before the court upon the question of the sufficiency of the plea, and there is per- haps ineidentally involved, though it was not argued, the de- murrer filed by other parties. �Enough has been stated of the character and history of this litigation to show with sufficient accuracy the present status of this case and of the parties to the litigation. And the attitude of the case, as it now cornes before us upon the amended bill and the demurrer and pleas thereto, would seem to be that of an independent ineasure, in course of regular prosecution and defence. As already stated, when the case was previously before ub it was supposed by the court that the views then expressed would resuit in a transfer of this whole controversy to the trustees' suit, where, in our opinion, it rightfully belonged. That suit had been commenced by the trustees and was pending when Stern filed his independent biU. �The trustees' suit, as originally commenced, was one which involved the rights, equities and interests of ail parties in- terested, and it then seemed to us that it would be an anomaly to have pending in the same court two such suits as these; one brought and prosecuted by the trustees under the mortgage, and the other by a single bond holder, and a review of the status of this controversy, in connection with the questions whioh directly arise under the issues made by the amended bill, and the demurrers and pleas, does not incline us to recede from the position first taken. There was much discussion upon the argument as to whether the nature of the suit brought by the trustees, especially in view of the character of their second supplemental bill, was such that it could be plead in bar of the Stern suit. �Whatever technical distinctions may be taken in this re- gard, we think it clear that no such relief as is asked in either of the bills filed in the trustees' suit could be granted with- out affecting the interests of the bond holders, and that no such relief could be granted to the complainant Stern, as is prayed in his bill, without affecting the trustees and other parties in interest. And we think it equally clear that this litigation ��� �