FARMERS' LOAN' & TETJST CO. ».' G. B. & M. B. CO. 111 �the Company was obtained, provided the court legitimately obtained jurisdiction of the parties. And why should not the mortgages be foreclosed, provided a reasonable proportion of the holders of bonds requested it to be done ? Certainly the petitioner cannot be heard to say that it was the duty^ of the Company to resist and obstruct a for«closuie. ■ If the mortgages were valid, and the debt due,, and if the company could not make payment, — the edntrary of -which the petition does not allege, — then it was the duty of the company to per- mit the trustee to foreclose, and the bondholders to reaiize their money. Nor upon such a state of facts does it seem to- me that it would be a fraud upon bondholders if the presi- dent of the company were to employ counsel to act for the company, even in advancement of the foreolosure. The gist of the petitioner' s allegations is that certain bondholders-— one of whom was the president of the company — retainea counsel for the company for the purpose of procuring service of process of subpœna in a genuine action to foreclose valid mortgages given to seeare & just debt. Stockholders being silent, I am unable to percoive how the petitioner can main- tain that the proceeding oomplained of was a fraud upon her, or a fraud upon the court. �There are allegations to the effect that the object of Blair and Dodge and their associates was to obtain ultimate con-' trol of the mortgaged property. But' the proceedings to fore- close the mortgage were necessarily public. The sale fol- lowing the decree must likewise be public and Open to ail bidders. Confirmati-on of the sale by the court must of necessity also be open to the resistance of any party in inter'- est, if the sale should not be fairly conducted, or if there should be such inadequacy of priee as might involve a «acri- fice of the property or injury to parties interested. Considw ering this matter in ail the pointa of view suggested> the main- ifest infirmity in the petitioner'8 case, upon this b'ranch of it, is that she shows no fraud upon her and no injury to her;' Attention was oalled on the argument tu certain admissions contained in the answer of the company filed by Gottrill &' Cary in the forecldsure suit as prejudicial to theirights and ��� �
