55S SXDEBAli BEPOBTEC. �mg Bcheme, and charged the trustees with varîous ftaudulent acts. Subsequently the complainant Lawson, by his counsel, came into court and asked that the bill be dismissed as to him, and an order of dismissal was accordingly entered, so that therealter it stood as a bill in belialf of Stern alone. �The case next came to the attention of the court by way of exceptions to the bill, filed by some of the defendants. These exceptions were heard by his honor, the circuit judge, in April, 1879, and he held {Stem v. Wis. Cent. B. Co. et al. C. L. N. August 16, 1879, p. 384) that the complainant onght not to proceed with his bill as an independent measure, but that he should come into the suit previously commenced by the trustees, and already pending in this court, and ask to be admitted for the protection of any equities which might exist in his favor; and in his opinion the circuit judge observed that if Stern should come in as a party to the original suit, it might be that he would bave the right to ask the court to direct the trustees to amend their bill so that there might be a sale of the property, and that it would then be the duty of the court to eonsider what his equities might be, and how far those equities had been prejudiced or impaired, if at ail, by any wrongful act of the trustees. No order was at the time made upon the specifie exceptions which had been filed to the bill. �Subsequently Stern filed an amended bill, and, no appear- ance being entered thereto by the defendants, an ex parte order was entered by complainant, taking the amended bill as confessed. The case then came bef ore the court upon a mo- tion to set aside this order pro confessa, and to strike from the files the amended bill, and this motion was granted for the reason that these prooeedings had been taken by complainant without notice to defendants, and without leave of court. The court, however, gave to complainant, leave to refile his amended bill, it being understood that it contained none of the supposed objectionable features of the original bill, and that it was filed for the purpose of more clearly present- ing complainànt's alleged equities, to the end that he might ■ have a review by the supreme court of the question of his ��� �
