BTEWART V. CHESAPEAKB <fe OHIO CANAL 00. 157 �to assist în procuring the passage of the act of 1878. That any deceit was practiced upon them by officers of the corpo- ration, as to the real condition of the canal or its finances, we have no reason to believe; and if, with kno-v^ledge of ail they now know, the agents of the complainant were satisfied them- selves and endeavored to convince others that the act of 1878, and the issuing of the bonds authôrized by ifc, was a wise, nec- essary, and beneficiai measure, surely the complainant's pres- ent claim to be protected from the corporation because of its acceptance of that act is not an argument which adds any strength to his case. �Without a more particulair statement of the reasons which have brought us to the conclusion, it suffices to say that, after a fuU consideration of the able presentation of the whole case, we find most of the material averments of the biU unsnpported by the testimony, and those which are proved are not, in our JTidgment, such as to justify the exercise of that Judicial power which would put into the hands of an officer of the court for an indefinite time the management of a qvMsi public work, attended with unusual risks and uncertainties. �We do, however, find that the complainant, and those who hold bonds similar to his, are in a position of great difficulty. They have a first lien on the revenues of a canal, which, it would appear, in years of reasonable business prosperity, when it bas a fair share of business, and meets with no extraordi- nary interruptions from freshets or strikes, can earn sufficient revenue to pay them the iuterest on their bonds. This margiu of surplus revenue over the working expanses, on vhich the ability to make these payments of interest depends, is bo email that it is easily absorbed, unless there is exercised the most careful management and economy. �In this management these bondholders have no voice what- ever. The state, as the owner of a majority of the utterly valueless stock, appoints the managers, and unless the bond- holders can sustain the burden of the proof of showing that they are not paid because of mismanagement, they have no remedy under their mortgage. It seems to us that under these circumstances the bondholders should be afforded some ����
