Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 32.djvu/532

496

The same court considered a somewhat similar question some seven years later, and took an even more advanced view. Here the trustees under two mortgages on the same railroad property were following the desires of the majority of the bondholders under each mortgage in bringing about an immediate sale of the property so as to enable a reorganization to be carried out, and were seeking to have disputes, as to the priority of liens, postponed until after the foreclosure, and determined upon distribution of the proceeds of the sale.

Chief Justice Waite said, in delivering the opinion of the court upholding the acts of the trustees:

The Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut has followed these decisions of the Supreme Court. A minority bondholder sought to enjoin a foreclosure sale and reorganization from being carried out without his consent. The court trenchantly said of the plaintiff's rights as a minority bondholder to insist upon the necessity of unanimous consent: