Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 3.djvu/184

 WKTMOKE V. ST. P. & P. E. CO. 177 ���Wetmoee and others v. St. Patjl &, Pacific R. Co. {Oireuit Court, D. Minnesota. June 28, 1880.) �1. MoRTGAGB — FoEBOiiOSUBE — Impeaching Decbbb. — After confirma- tion of the sale of a railioad under decree of foreclosure, holders of the mortgage bonds will not be allowed, at a subsequent term, to be made parties to the original foreclosure suit, for the purpose ot im- peaching the decree, sale, and confirmation as fraudulent, although in the order of confirmation the power to make furthor order is ex- pressly reserved. �The proceedings and sale in this case considered, and hdd f ree from fraud. �On June 14, 1879, the St. Paul & Pacific Railroad, its land grant, etc., were sold under a decree of the United States, circuit court for Minnesota, entered April 11, 1879, in a suit for foreclosure of a trust mortgage, securing bonds to the amount of $15,000,000, and were purchased by a corpora- tion organized by the holders of a large majority of the bonds. On June 21, 1879, the sale was eonfirmed, and the property delivered to the purchaser, the order of contirma- iion, however, containing this clause: "This order is made fay and with the consent, and at the request of, the trustees, the complainants, and with the consent of the parties de- fendant, and the right to make any further order is reserved." �After the confirmation, certain bond holders filed a bill in the same court to vacate the decree and sale as fraudulent, which bill was dismissed. See KrophoUer v. Kennedy, 2 Fed. Rep. 302. Thereupon, the same bond holders and others presented a petition at the June term, 1880, praying that they migbt be made parties to the original foreclosure suit, and that the decree, sale, and confirmation might be set aside as fraudulent. �This petition was heard before Miller and Nelson, JJ, �John M. Gilman and C. K, Davis, for petitioners. �Geo. B. Young and R. B. Galusha, contra. �MiLLEB, C. J. (orally.) This case, which has been very fuUy argued before us, and which we have taken into con- sideration as thoroughly as we are able at this term, iis �T.3,no.4— 12 ����