Equitable Trust Co. v. Western Pac. Ry. Co.

(after stating the facts as above). While the facts are, as suggested, somewhat voluminous, and the arguments and briefs in keeping, I am unable to regard the questions which I deem necessary to be decided as involving anything of great magnitude, and although of importance as affecting the jurisdiction of this court, the orderly administration of justice, and the rights of the parties, they involve little novelty.' The argument, however, has taken a wide range, and it may be well to suggest at the threshold that I do not feel called upon to follow it in all its ramifications, or even to notice some of the contentions advanced.

Much has been made, for instance, of the question raised by the dependent bill, whether the so-called guaranty or financial provisions of contract B, stipulated to 1 “run with the railways” of the contracting parties, constitute a lien for the benefit of the bondholders of defendant on the road of the Denver Company; and the fears of the latter company' have been excited to the point of having its counsel appear (amicus) to combat that proposition. But while I so far agree with the theor/ prompting the bringing of the dependent suit that, before the assets…