426 fedesaIj bepobteb. �cognizant of the facts alleged in the bill for avoiding the con- tract. �The three pleas in bar of the defendants Park and Baxter, the plea in bar of the defendant the Emma Silver Mining Com- pany of New York, and the joint plea in bar of all the defend- ants, overruled. The first plea in bar of defendant Park overruled; the second and third suatained. ���MoCoMB V. Chicago, St. Louis & New Orleans E. Co. and �another. �(Oireuit Omrt, S. D. Nm York. Pebruary 10, 1881.) �1. DlSCOVEKT— OFFICER OF CoEPOKATrON. �An offlcer of a corporation cannot be made a party defendant to a cross-bill, for the purpose of discovery, where he did not derive the desired information in his officiai capacity. �2. Samb— Bame. �In such case the discovery cannot be had, although the offlcer derived his information from a participation in the creation of the corporation. — [Ed. �In Equity. Demurrer. �F. N. Bangs and F. C. Stetson, for plaintiff. �J. Emott and Ashbel Green, for defendant Osbom. �Choatb, D. J. The defendant corporation having brought a suit in equity against this plaintiflf, the principal object of which was to procure a decree adjudging void certain mort- gage bonds of the Mississippi Central Eailroad Company, a corporation formerly owning a railroad now belonging to de- fendant corporation, this plaintiff had leave of the court to file a cross-bill. In his cross-bill the plaintiff joined as a defendant, for the purposes of discovery, the defendant Os- born, the president of the defendant corporation. One of the defences set up in the cross-bill is that the title of the defend- ant corporation to itp railroad is derived through the fore- closure of a subsequent mortgage thereon; that by the terms of the mortgage so foreclosed, and also by the provisions of ��� �
