Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/571

 8TEBN V. WI8C0NSIN CENT. K. CO. 563 �Bhould proceed in one suit. To the trustees' suit, which was first commenced, Stem, as one of the bond holders, had a clear right to apply for admission, to contest the very mat- ters which he sets up in his independent bill. It is true that he was not made a party to that suit until the second supple- mental bill was filed, which was after he had filed his own bill, and that, in the nature of the relief ask'ed, the supple- mental bill is a radical departure from the relief sought by the original bill ; but, notwithstanding this, we think it is not an effective obstacle to the assertion by Stern, in that suit, of his rights and equities, if he bas any ; and it would cer- tainly be an anomaly, and a course of procedure which we could not sanction, to permit this litigation to go forward in its present form, in part in the trustees' suit, and in part in a suit subsequently commenced by a single bond holder. �The court has the power, we suppose, either to consolidate the two cases, or to stay the proceedings in one, thereby transferring the controversy to the other, and one or other of these courses we deem it the duty of the court to take, Some- thing was said upon the argument to the efifect that com- plainants in the trustees' suit had given such shape to that case, by proceedings subsequent to the original bill, that a f ore- closure of the mortgage was rendered impossible, and that there could not be given to Stern in that suit the redress to which he deems himself entitled. We do not think so. It is not a question here as to which of the parties to this contro- versy shall or can be dominus litus. The litigation is under the control of the court, and, if need be, the court has the power and may rightfully assume the functions of that office. �That Stern, as a party to the trustees' suit, may answer the bills which are therein filed, and may interpose his cross- bill, and may by such appropriate pleadings bring fully before the court the matter set up in the amended bill in his suit, we cannot doubt, nor do we doubt the powôr of the court, upon a full presentation of ail the equities in that suit, to adjudicate upon them as completely as it might do in any other form; and, in the action which we shall take with refer- ence to these causes, it will be understood that it is not ��� �