Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/859

 IN ES KBIiLT. 847 �coal coiûpany, deposited wfth the last-nained company 55,331 shares of the capital stock of the railway company as collateral security to said loan, which stock was the property of the petitioner, and exceeded in value the amount of the note and interest; and that: the petitioner was at the time the contracter of the railway company by whom the road was constructed ; that at the request of the railway company the petitioner paid from bis own personal funds, on the twentieth day of February, 1875, the fuU amount, principal and inter- est, then due on the note, namely, $293,038.11. It is alleged that this payment was made by petitioner for the benefit of the railway company and of the bondholders; and that he bas not been re-imbursed the money which be so advanced in payment of said note. ■ �It is further alleged that long before this loan was effeeted, and at the time the same was .made, and ever since that time, the bondholders, at whose instance the receiver in the present foreclosure action was appointed, were and bave been in the actual control and management of the affairs of the railway company, through and by means of the directors and other of&cers of the company, as their agents nominaliy in control of the company and its officers, but actually under the control of the bondholders; and that the bondholders, who were also stockholders, authorized and directed the lôan to be made for the purpose of constructing said road, and also authorized .and directed the expenditure of the amount of the loan in construction of the" road, and that the eame was accordingly, with their knowledge and consent, expended in such construction. Further, that the iron and coal com- pany was a stockholder of the railway coinpany, and as such also knew that the money so loaned by it was to be and was actually expended in construction; and that such work of construction was done not only with. the consent and ap- provalof the iron and coal company, but at its request andby its direction. �It is then alleged that the loan was absolutely neoessary for the completion of the road, and that without such loaii the road could not have been built, and the bonds of the railway ����