Alexander v. Central R. R.

DILLON, Circuit Judge. 1. The authority in the deed of trust to the trustee, on default of the payment of interest, and upon the written request of a majority of the bondholders to take possession of the road, to operate it and receive its income, and on three months’ notice to sell the same, and divide the proceeds of the sale pro rata among the bondholders, is a cumulative remedy for the benefit of mortgage creditors, and does not exclude their right to resort to the judicial tribunals for a foreclosure. Especially is this so, as the laws of the state of Iowa forbid sales under powers of this character by proceedings out of court. 2. Provisions in an instrument of this character limiting the right of a mortgage creditor to resort to a court of chancery to foreclose his security, are not to be extended beyond the fair meaning of the language used; and it is our opinion that there is no restriction in the deed of trust before us, upon the right of' the coupon-holder to foreclose for interest upon default, although a majority of the bondholders do not unite in the suit, or request the trustee to bring it. The provision in question gives a majority of the bondholders, on default of the payment of interest, the option or election, after the expiration of a year from the default, to have the whole principal sum become due at once, and the mortgage security enforced accordingly. This is not inconsistent with the unabridged right of any coupon-holder to foreclose for interest, in the manner sought in the present bill, - and it was not necessary that a majority of the coupon-holders should unite in bringing the bill, or in a request to the trustee to bring it. 3. As the bill alleges that the trustee refused to bring suit, the bill was properly brought in the name of the plaintiffs, for themselves and the other coupon-holders, making the trustee a defendant. 4. If the plaintiffs elect to dismiss the bill as to the trustee, we will allow the trustee to become a party plaintiff, and to file a bill for the benefit of all the bondholders; but it would be anomalous to have the trustee on the record both as defendant and plaintiff in the same proceeding. The de [365] murrer of tlie railroad company to the bill is overruled. NOTE, [from original report.] See Galveston H. & H. R. Co. v. Cowdrey. 11 Wall. [78 U. S.] 459: Gillman v. Illinois, etc., Tel. Co., [91 U. S. 603.] Ordered accordingly.