Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 6.djvu/117

 FARMEBS' LOAN & TBUST 00. V. G. B. & M. B. 00. 105 �neous in that it does not observe or follow the terms of the mortgages as to the receipt of bonds as part of the purchase price for the property sold. The sale authorized in the mort- gages was one to be made in certain eontingencies by the trustee. It was a sale to be made in acoordance with the stipulations of the parties. The course of procedure there prescribed was one to be pursued in case of a sale without foreclosure, and it was competent and proper for the parties to place upon the trustee certain restrictions, and to define the limits within which he must act in making sucb a sale. But those provisions could not bind the court if foreclosure proceedings should be instituted, and a sale should be made under its direction. In such ease the sale would have to be made according to the usual course of practice in judicial proceedings, and the court would be no more bound te adopt the provisions of the mortgages, as to the acceptance from a purchaser of bonds to apply on his bid, or the proportion in which bonds should be so received, or the manner in which their value should be ascertained, than it would be bound to adopt the directions to the trustee, contained in the mort- gages, as to the advertisement of the property for sale. As a test of this question, suppose the court, ignoring the pro- visions of the mortgages altogether, should order the property sold for cash, and iu no manner authorize the payment of a bid in bonds, would that be an error of which a bbhdholder could complain ? Clearly not. Undoubtedly, the court might adopt, so far as practicable, the method of procedure pointed out in the mortgages, but it would not be error affecting the validity of the decree not to do so, unless wrong and injus- tice were apparent in the decree entered by the oourt ; and I am nnable to perceive wherein the decree in the particular under consideration faits to observe the rights of ail parties. 3. This brings us to another point urged against the valid- ity of the decree, and which in some aspects connects itself with the question last considered. It is alleged in the peti- tion, as one of the grounds on which the court should allow a bill of feview to be filed, that the decree does not establish the percentage value of the bonds or coupons secured by ��� �