36 FEDERAL REPORTER �KiNG and others v. The Ohio & Mississippi R. Co. Campei.1. V. Thb Ohio & Mississippi R. Co. �{Circuit Court, D. Indiana. February 25, 1880.) �Railboad— MoBxaAQE— Pbefbbbed Stockholdebs.— It la a general rul« mat the stockholders of a railroacl are only to Oe paid after the ciaima of other lien holders, and where they come forward and insisj, upon hav- ing a priority of payment ovor mortgage creditors, a specitîc lica bcyond ail doubt should be shown to exist iu their favor. �In Equity. �Mr. Porter and Mr. Soren, for the preferred stockholders. �Mr. Hendricks and Mr. Peckham, for the trustees. �Mr. Miller, for the receiver. �Mr. Hoadley and Mr. Harrison, for the second mortgage bond holders. �Drummond, g. J. These were bills flled by the plaintiffs as original and cross-bills, some of them claiming to be bond holders under certain mortgages or deeds of trust, and Camp- bell claiming to be a trustee under certain deeds of trust, which were given to secure certain lionds issued by the rail- road Company. These billswere filed in 1876 and 1877, and a receiver was placed in possession of the property under the order of the court, which iucluded a line of raihvay from Cincinnati, in Ohio, to East St. Louis, in Illinois, with a branch to Louisville, and what is called the Springfield Divis- ion, in Illinois. It was consequently a railway existing and operàted under the laws of three states, Ohio, Indiana and Illinois. These bills asked for foreclosure of the mortgages or deeds of trust, and a sale of ail the property of the railway Company. Varions mortgages and deeds of trust had been given on parts of the combined railway before those which are in controversy here, and there had been foreclosure proceed- ings instituted on those prior mortgages or deeds of trust in the three states, and sales had taken place of different por- tions of the property, covering altogether the entire line of the railway. The railway bas continued to bp operàted by the ����
