Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 7.djvu/401

 TATLOE V. PHILADELPHU & EBADING E. 00. 389 �this court upon the PhiladelpWa & Reading Railroad to adopt and carry into eflect the deferred-bond plan, triiich is generally described in said order, be and the same is hereby revoked, and that the said order shall be construed and taken only as relieving said company from the effect of the injunction ordered by this court when receivers of the property of the said Company were appointed, by permitting it to exercise, upon its own re- sponsibility and according to its own legal discretion, such powers as its charter conf erred upon it in providing means for the payment of its debts in the mode proposed." �The court then continued the hearing until March 25, 1881, and in the meanwhile restrained the respondents from doing any act by which the railroad company might be deflnitely bound with respect to the deferred- bond plan or the $150,000,000 mortgage loan. On March 25th a final hearing was had upon the two motions. �Richard C. Dale, Ashbel Green, and John C. Bullitt, for complainants. �John G. Johnson and James E. Gowen, for respondents, �Richard C. McMurtrie, for a subscriber to the deferred bonds. �McKennan, c. J. The present proceeding is two-fold: First, to obtain a rescission of an order made November 18, 1880, by one of the judges of this court at chambers, touch- ing the issue by the Philadelphia & Eeading Eailroad Com- pany of $34,000,000 of "deferred bonds;" and, second, to en- join the issue of such bonds. �Whatever may be the literal import of the order of Novem- ber 18, 1880, only the significance and effect of an order by consent can be given to it. The petition for it was referred to one of the masters in the cause, His report was favora- ble. AU classes of interest supposed to be affected by it were apparently represented and concurring, and it was, therefore, made without argument and as of course. When it- was afterwards challenged by the complainants here, the circum- stanees under which it was made were fully explained, and its phraseology was so changed as to exclude any inference of authoritative sanction of the plan referred to. The petition for the revocation of the order must then stand upon the same footing as to merit with the motion for the injunction. �The deferred-bond plan is challenged for the vital reason that the corporation is iegally incompetent to institute it. It is notably peculiar in its features. It is a proposition by the corporation that the stock ' and bondholders shall subscribe ��� �