Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 6.djvu/119

 FARMEKS' LOAN & TEUST 00^ C. G; B. ■& M. R. CO. 107 �may le paid in cash or in certain designated toortgage bonds. Certainly the court would have the power to require the entire amount of the bid to be paid into oOnrt in cash, and then to apply the money in payment of oosts and upon the bonds at such a percentage as the entire bid wonld pay. In that case the court would receiro the money and directly pay it out again in dividends on the bonds. In the case con- templated by the decree, the bonds are brbught in as repre- eenting a part of the cash bid, and stiitable indors'ements and cancellations made, so that the transaction is made equivalent to the payment in cash of the entire purchase money, and the application of it on the bonds in the manner before indi- cated. Could the court have foreseen \<i'hat has occurred since the entry of the decree, especially in regard to the pres- entation of intervening claims, it is probable that it would have required, in terms, the payment of a larger sum in cash at the time of the sale than $25,000 ; but I do not think that very important, because the court has the undoubted power to require a sufficient sum to meet ail exigencies to be paid into court as a condition of confirming the sale. After careful consideration of the question, I ani unable to perceive how injustice could resuit to bondholders from the terms of this decree in the particuiars referred to. Every bondholder ^r other person is at liberty to bid at the sale. He may bid what he thinks the property is worth. He knows that the price for which the property may be sold will represent the value of the property, and will fix the value of the bonds. He knows that the proceeds of the sale rStast be used to pay bonds, and that they must be applied pro rata upon bonds. He knows, also, that the percentage so to be applied will depend upon the amount for which the property sells, and the amount of the bonds ; and knowing further that if the sale is properly conducted and if he is the highest bidder he will get the property, he is left to freely and fairly exercise his judgment as to the sum he will bid. On the whole, my opin- ion is that the decree is not erroneous, and does not, in form or substance, deviate from correct practice in the particuiars which have been eonsidered. ��� �