Railroad Corporations—Reorganization Committee op Bondholders ■—Construction of Agreement Covering Deposit of Bonds.—In an action by certain bondholders against their committee in a railroad reorganization to enforce the trusts under which their bonds were deposited with the committee, and to have declared void the reorganization of the railroad, it is held that the first' agreement of bondholders shown in this case, which was drawn with the purpose of conferring plenary powers upon the committee, as supplemented by the later agreement here shown, amounted, so far as the plaintiff bondholders here are concerned, to an agreement upon the part of the committee that it would first use its endeavors to find whether a reorganization could be effected upon the plans and lines laid down in the second agreement, with such departures therefrom as might be necessary to the accomplishment of this end, but failing the ability to do this thing there was still in reserve their broad powers to effectuate any other organization which in their judgment seemed t'o be best and for the best interests of the bondholders.

Id.—Powers Which can be Conferred on Committee by Bondholders. The bondholders of a railway company may by agreement confer such powers as they see fit on the committee appointed to represent them, and may agree in advance that their bonds shall be subjected to any plan of reorganization which the committee may adopt.

Id.—Foreclosure by Bondholders — Duties Toward Stockholders and Creditors.—The bondholders of a railroad upon foreclosure have the unquestioned right without regard to any of the equities of the stockholders or creditors to foreclose their lien and bid in the properties.

Td.—Usual Form of Reorganization.—A plan of reorganization, whereby the old bondholders become the stockholders of the new railway company, is not unusual, and has been declared by the supreme court of the United States to be the best way of effecting such reorganization,—“that is to say, reorganizing the enterprise on the basis of existing mortgage as stock, or something which is equivalent, and by a new mortgage with a lien superior to the old to raise the money which is required.”

Id.—Suit to Enforce Trust Against Committee—Refusal to Allow Amendment to Complaint.—It is not error to refuse to allow a party plaintiff, in a suit by bondholders to enforce a trust against the reorganization committee, and to have declared illegal the reorganization of the railroad, to file an amendment to the complaint, which amendment did not allege that the bonds referred to had ever been deposited with the committee under the reorganization agreement sued upon.