Appellant seeks reversal of a judgment in favor of respondent, after trial before the court without a jury, decreeing foreclosure of a trust indenture.

The essential facts are these:

June 23, 1937, the parties hereto executed a trust indenture which contained, among others, article VII, section 7, which read so far as relevant here thus:

February 17, 1939, respondent, the trustee named in the trust indenture served notice upon appellant, Grand Avenue Realty Company, that it had failed to maintain with the trustee the “Rental Guaranty Fund” mentioned in section 7 of article VII of the Trust Indenture. Within sixty days appellant company paid to the trustee $4,923.87, which fund was used to pay taxes in the amount of $3,670.29 and an installment of rents due in the sum of $1,250. On October 7, *941 1942, the trustee again gave appellant company notice reading in part as follows:

The notice further stated that holders of not less than 25 per cent in amount of the bonds secured by the trust indenture and outstanding had made written request upon the trustee to declare the principal of the bonds to be payable immediately and that the trustee declare all of the outstanding bonds due and payable and demand immediate payment thereof. The company did not at any subsequent time restore the “Rental Guaranty Fund.”

There are four questions necessary for us to determine which will be stated and answered hereunder seriatim:

This question must be answered in the affirmative. In addition to section 7, article VII of the trust indenture set forth above, section 4, article VII of the trust indenture declares that the “Rental Guaranty Fund” is a part of the trust estate securing the bonds in this language:

Likewise in section 9, article VII of the trust indenture appears this language:

It is thus clear from the very wording of the trust indenture that appellant company agreed to establish and thereafter maintain the “Rental Guaranty Fund” as a part of the trust estate, free from all liens ahead of the claim of the bonds.

The word “maintain” is thus defined in 38 Corpus Juris (1925) page 335:

In Bosqui v. City of San Bernardino, 2 Cal.2d 747 [ 43 P. 2d 547 ], the Supreme Court of California on page 758 said:

This construction of the word maintain as used in section 7, article VII of the trust indenture appears to be in accord with appellant’s own views for on page three of their brief, they say:

*943 Through this statement, appellant concedes that the “Rental Guaranty Fund” was provided “as additional security” for the bonds. If this fund was not to be “maintained” by the company independently of the income of the property, it failed in being “additional security” for the bonds. In addition the covenant of the trust indenture is “that such sum shall be maintained with the trustee so long as any of the bonds secured hereby are outstanding” and that “the company covenants and agrees” that such sum shall be maintained. This constitutes a direct covenant of the company, independent of the income from the leasehold estate, to keep the “Rental Guaranty Fund” intact in the sum of $3,825.

Second: Did appellant company by paying to the trustee $4,923.87 on July 20, 1942, in response to the notice of default of June 1, 1942, cure such defaultf

This question must be answered in the negative. The letter transmitting the sum of $4,923.87, was dated July 20, 1942, signed “Grand Avenue Realty Company by Eugene J. Meyberg, Secy.” and reads in part thus:

It is apparent from the foregoing provisions of appellant company’s letter that the money transmitted to the trustee was not for the purpose of replenishing the “Rental Guaranty Fund,” nor can it be validly contended that this sum of money was deposited in the rental guaranty fund, since section 1, article IV of the trust indenture read in part as follows:

Third: Did the trustee abandon its intention to declare a default pursuant to the notice served February 17, 1939, since the trustee took no further action to enforce the default for several years after the notice was served?

This question must also be answered in the negative. Section 20, article VI of the trust indenture read in part thus:

The foregoing provision makes it clear that there was no waiver or abandonment by the trustee by delaying the enforcement of the default of appellant company.

Fourth: Did holders of 25 per cent of the outstanding bonds authorise and request the trustee to declare the maturity of said bonds and to foreclose the trust indenture?

This question must be answered in the affirmative. So far as material on this point, section 3, article VI of the trust indentures provides as follows:

Section 4, article VI of the trust indenture reads thus:

Section 5, article VII of the Trust Indenture reads thus:

Section 2, article VIII in the trust indenture reads thus:

It is conceded that $25,250 principal amount represents 25 per cent of the bondholders or a total of twenty-six bonds. Appellant concedes that the owners of twenty-nine bonds signed requests to the trustee to declare the bonds due and to foreclose the trust indenture. It is claimed, however, that:

This objection is likewise without merit since the record discloses that these bondholders had signed a prior request on July 30, 1942.

Prom the foregoing facts it is apparent that 25 per cent of the outstanding bondholders did authorize and request respondent trustee to declare the bonds matured, and to foreclose the trust indenture because of appellant company’s *947 failure to maintain the. ‘‘Rental Guaranty Fund” in the sum of $3,825 as provided in section 7, article VII- of the trust indenture agreement.

In view of our conclusions, it is unnecessary to discuss other questions presented by counsel.

For the foregoing reasons the judgment is affirmed.

Moore, P. J., concurred.

Wood (W. J.), J., deeming himself disqualified, did not participate.