FARMEKS' LOAN & TEUST CO. V. G. B. & M. B. 00. 118 �such grounds of objection are presented, or such probable injury to petitioner is shown, as makes the petition sustain- able, �7. Finally and generally, it may be stated that even if the court were in doubt as to the disposition that should be made of the present petition, it would be a serions question whether that doubt would not have to be resolved against the peti- tioner because of her own laches. As before stated, the bill in the foreclosure suit was filed in January, 1878. Sincethat time the bill, subpœna, record of service of subpœna, and the answer have beea on file. The decree was entered in April, 1879. Nearly two years afterwards, and within a few days before the sale was advertised to take place, the present peti- tion was filed. Certainly the delay bas been great, and it can hardly be said that it is sufficiently excused by any aver- ments to that end contained in the petition. Then it is not certain that the petitioner, as the holder of the bonds de- Bcribed in her petition, bas any real interest in the subject- matter of this controversy. Her bonds are secured by the second mortgage. There is no allegation that they are included in the $850,260 of second mortgage bonds which were issued to take up past-due first mortgage coupons, and which be- came secured by the first mortgage. Nor is there any aver- ment that the mortgaged property is of suEScient value to pay more than the first mortgage bonds. There is, in fact, no allegation whatever touching the value of the property covered by the mortgages. And in conclusion, upon ail the grounds, and for the varions reasons stated, the demurrer to the peti- tion will be sustained, and the petition will be dismissed. ���v.6,no.2— 8 ��� �
