Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/863

 IN RE KBLLÎ. 851 efit of the bondholders, who, it is alleged, haàthe management and control of the oompany to the extent before pointed out ; but itdoes not foUow, from the fact that the bondholders may have authorized and requested the original loan to be made and the moneys to be expended, that the petitioner could, by the subsequent payment of thô debt for the accommodation of the Company, acquire an equity over then-existing mort- gage liens. If his action was merely that of a volunteer, it will not be doubted that he could not maintain his claim as against the mortgages. And to give him a superior equity, on account of his payment of the company's indebtedness, it must be alleged ànd shown that he acted under such inducements from the bondholders, and had such dealings with them in the transaction, as estop them to assert their liens against his claim. As before indicated, it is not enough to say that his money, for which he now seeks re-imbursement, bas gone into the road, and that the bondholders liave been benelited thereby. Before relieving the company by payment of its note, the petitioner could have required from the company and its secured crediisors express security of a character at least co-equal with the mortgages, if not superior to them ; and in the absence of such security the taortgage liens could only be displaced by such affirmative acts on the part of the bond- holders as would in equity operate to estop them from assert- ing those liens in hostility to him. In this connection it is to be borne in mind that, upon a mere showing that the petitioner paid aji indebtedness of the company incurred on account of construction, and in the absence of allegation and proof of such Special facts and circiimstances as wôuld raise an estoppel against the bondholders, the petitioner's clàim could not be enforced because not within the six-months' rule which prevails in this circuit.* The allegation that the fore- mond, of the seventh circuit, " by which the practice is established of dia- allowing claims against a receiver which originally were claims against a railroad company,— such as for supplies, wages of employes, and the like, — and which did not accrue withia six months before the appointment of theTeceiver,'unless there are special circumstances or equities which ought to take the particular case out of the oiaeration of the rule. "-^[Ed.
 * The " six montlis i-ule " above cited refers to a ruling of Jndge Drum-