This was a suit for the foreclosure of a mortgage, executed August 10, 1886, by the appellant, Seattle, Lake Shore & Eastern Railway Company, to the appellee, Union Trust Company of ISTew York, in trust, to secure the payment of 5,675 bonds, of the denomination of $1,000 each, payable to the holder or holders thereof on the 1st day of August, 1931, with interest thereon at the rate of 6 per cent, per annum, payable semiannually. The bonds had annexed thereto interest coupons for the respective semiannual installments of interest. After the delivery of the bonds, and before the institution of the suit, 117 of the bonds were redeemed and canceled by the railway company, leaving 5,558 outstanding at the time of the commencement of the suit, in the hands of the various parties to whom they had been sold for a valuable consideration. Each of the bonds contains this provision:

To secure the payment of the bonds, all of which were duly authorized and executed by the railway company, the company at the same time duly executed to the trust company a mortgage upon its property, in which the property mortgaged is thus described:

The mortgage also provided that the railway company should pay into a sinking fund, created by the terms of the mortgage, annually, after August 1, 1891, an amount equal to 1 per cent, upon the aggregate of the principal of all of the company’s outstanding bonds. It also contained a covenant to the effect that the railway company, whenever requested by the trust company, should execute to the trust company such further deed and assurance for the better assuring to the trustee the said lines of railroad and branches, premises, property, appurtenances, rights, privileges, immunities, and franchises mentioned, and thereby “conveyed, or meant or intended so to be, whether now owned, acquired, or held, or hereafter to be acquired or possessed by it,” as the trustee or its counsel should reasonably advise or require. The mortgage also contained this covenant:

Tlie record shows that in July, 1893, in anticipation of default in the x>ayment of the interest upon the bonds maturing August i, 1893, an agreement was prepared providing for the appointment of a committee of the bondholders, to consist of James 1). Smith, H. O. Armour. Edward D. Christian, Morton S. Patou, and a fifth person to be chosen by them, authorizing such committee to institute and conduct such suits and actions and take such proceedings as to it should seem advisable and proper for the protection and enforcement of the rights of the bondholders, of which committee Morton S. Patou was selected chairman. Subsequently that agreement was signed by the owners and holders of 4,072 of the bonds, being more than five-sixths of the entire issue. On the 16th day of November, 1893, Patou, as such chairman, addressed to the trustee this letter;

As printed in the record, the date of this letter is November 16, 1891, which date, as asserted by counsel for the appellee, and which is evident from other parts of the record, particularly the findings and decree, is incorrect; the true date of the letter being November 16,1893. It was pursuant to that request that the original bill, after notice to the defendant railway company, was allowed, by the court below to be filed, and was filed December 23, 1893. In the bill as so filed it was alleged, among other things, that the railway company made default in the payment of the semiannual interest due and payable upon the bonds secured by the mortgage, and each of them, on August 1, 3893, after demand therefor duly made. The original bill *182 also contained the allegation “that it is essential to the preservation of the rights of your orator, and of all said bondholders, that the income yielded by said mortgaged premises be at once secpiestrated and applied towards the reduction of the amounts due and to become due on said bonds.” The prayer of the bill was for an accounting and ascertaining of the amount due and unpaid for interest on the outstanding bonds, and that the payment thereof be decreed; and for the ascertaining of what amount is due and payable to the sinking fund, and that payment thereof be decreed; and for the ascertaining of the amount due for taxes and other prior liens, and for allowances for costs of suit and attorney’s fees, and that the payment thereof be decreed; and that, in default of such payments within a reasonable time, to be fixed by the court, the mortgaged premises be decreed to be sold, and the proceeds, after the discharge of the prior liens and costs and attorney’s fees, be applied to the payment of interest due on the outstanding bonds and to the payment of the amount due to the sinking fund. The prayer also asked for the appointment of a receiver of the property, which appointment the court subsequently made.

To the original bill the defendant railway company entered its general appearance July 2, 1894. • On the ,28th day of July, 1894, the trust company addressed and sent to the railway company this letter:

On the 2d day of August, 1894, the complainant made a motion in the court below for leave to file an amended bill, a copy of which was on the same day served upon the solicitors for the defendant railway company. The motion was granted by the court, and an amended bill filed, which alleged, among other things, that in and by the mortgage—

The amended bill also alleged that the defendant railway company had made default in the payment of the semiannual interest due and payable on the bonds, and each of them, on the 1st day of August, 1893, and on the 1st day of February, 1894, respectively, due demand therefor having been made, and the coupons therefor having been duly presented, and had also made other defaults in failing to comply with *183 the conditions of the mortgage, by reason of which the complainant had, on or about July 20, 1894, elected to declare, and did declare, the principal of all of the bonds secured by the mortgage to be immediately due and payable. Subsequent amendments to the bill were by leave of the court filed by the complainant, and on October 2, 1894, this stipulation was entered into and filed by the respective parties, through their solicitors:

The defendant railway company, on the 15th day of October, 1894, answered to the merits, to which answer exceptions were filed by the complainant and sustained by the court. On the 25th day of January, 1895, the defendant railway company filed an amended answer and plea, duly verified by its vice president, which plea was, on the 11 tli day of February, 1895, set down for argument upon the ground of its insufficiency, and which plea, after argument, was by the court overruled February 18, 1895. On (lie 24th day of May, 1895, leave was given the defendant railway company to file a second amended answer, which it did on the same day, and which was duly verified by the vice president of the company. To that second amended answer the complainant filed exceptions on the 24th of May, 1895, for impertinence, and the matters so excepted to were subsequently expunged by order of the court. No other amendment to the answer being made, and the cause being at issue, the same was referred, on the 14th day of June, 1895, to the master. Among the issues raised by the pleadings, and so referred to the master, was one as to the amount due upon the outstanding bonds secured by the mortgage; and the master was also directed, among other things, to ascertain and report all of the property upon which the mortgage was a lien, and to ascertain and report whether the mortgaged property could be advantageously sold in separate parcels, or whether the same should be sold as an entirety. Upon the taking of the proof before the master botli parties to the suit were represented by their solicitors, and there this stipulation in writing was entered into by the respective parties:

In Schedule E, referred to in this stipulation, is embraced 2,500 shares of the capital stock of the Union Depot Company of Spokane Falls. The Union Depot Company of Spokane Falls is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the territory (now state) of Washington, having its office and principal place of business at the city of Spokane Falls, in that state, and was organized for the purpose, among other purposes, of acquiring, by purchase, donation, lease, or otherwise, lands in Spokane county, and to contract for the construction of, and to construct, railway passenger depots, freight depots, warehouses, roundhouses, machine shops, cattle yards, grain elevators, side tracks, and storage tracks, and any and all buildings or structures useful, necessary, or convenient for railway terminals, and to carry on and conduct the business of a railway terminal company, and to provide railway terminal facilities at or near the city of Spokane Falls, in the territory (now state) of Washington, and to charge reasonable compensation therefor, and to acquire, by purchase, lease, or otherwise, warehouses, storehouses, elevators, and other structures, and to sell, lease, or otherwise dispose of any structures or buildings owned or controlled by it. With the Seattle, Lake Shore & Eastern Railway Company and the Washington & Idaho Railroad Company, the Union Depot Company of Spokane Falls entered into, on the 14th day of October, 1889, a lease, by which the Union Depot Company undertook to construct and maintain, on lands which it had acquired and then owned, and which are specifically described in the lease, for the use in common by the two railway companies mentioned, and their successors and assigns, all necessary depots and other terminal facilities at the city of Spokane Falls, for certain considerations and upon certain terms and conditions in the lease mentioned.

On the 3d day of October, 1895, the master filed his report, to which no objections or exceptions were filed by the defendant railway company, and on the 22d day of ^November, 1895, the report coming on to be heard, both parties being represented by their solicitors, it was by the court in all things confirmed. The report showed, among other things, the number of outstanding bonds to be 5,558, and tbe amount of principal and interest due and unpaid thereon to be $6,446,980. A decree and order of sale followed for that sum, together with costs and attorney’s fees, to procure the reversal of which the present appeal was brought.

*185 In support of the appeal the counsel for the appellant make four points: (1) That the court below erred in finding and decreeing that 1 he principal of all of the outstanding bonds became due and payable in July, 1891, by virtue of the declaration of the complainant; (2) that it erred in decreeing that the defendant railway company pay, within a certain time stated, the principal of all the outstanding bonds, as well as the interest due thereon, as a condition by which to avoid a sale of the mortgaged property; (3) that the court below erred in providing in the decree for a deficiency judgment in favor of the complainant and against the defendant railway company; (4) that it erred by including in the property decreed to be sold 2,500 «liares of the capital stock of the Union Depot Company of Spokane Falls.

The assignments of error by which the appellant seeks to present these points are as follows:

Passing the question of the sufficiency of these assignments, we think it clear that the appellant’s points 1, 2, and 3 are not well taken. Points 1 and 2 may be considered and disposed of together. They relate to the inclusion by the court below in its decree of the principal sums of the outstanding bonds. Undoubtedly, if the principal sums were not due at the time of the trial and judgment, their inclusion would constitute such error as would make it necessary to reverse riie entire decree; for, as said by the supreme court in Railroad Co. v. Fosdick, 106 U. S. 47, 71 , 1 Sup. Ct. 10:

It is true, as stated by counsel for the appellant, that by the terms of the mortgage a majority in interest of the bondholders had control of the action of the trustee respecting its election to declare the principal of the bonds due by reason of default on the part of the mortgagor; for the mortgage in terms authorized the majority in interest of the bondholders to waive the right of election, and to annul or reverse the election of the trustee when exercised. But, in saying that the committee of the bondholders, through its chairman, after the action of the trustee in declaring the principal sums of the outstanding-bonds due, and before the case was at issue in the court below, annulled that action of the trustee, the counsel for the appellant make a mistake of fact. The basis of that statement by the appellant’s counsel is the letter from the chairman of the committee of bondholders to the complainant, appearing in the record as of date November 16, 1894, by which the trustee was requested “to proceed forthwith to the foreclosure of said mortgage for the interest past due and unpaid,” and in which the trustee was informed that “the committee does not desire, at the present time, to declare the principal of said mortgage due, but request that the papers may be drawn on the lines as above indicated, namely, unpaid interest.” The findings of the master, to which no objections or exceptions -were taken by the appellant, as well as the findings and decree of the court, show that the original bill, which was filed December 23, 1893, urns filed pursuant to that request of the committee of the bondholders. That letter, therefore, must have been written prior to December 23,1893. Its date appearing in the record—November 16, 1894—was, therefore, evidently a mistake, the year 1894 being, as stated by counsel for the appellee, erroneously given instead of 1893. Besides, there is in that letter nothing whatever to indicate any reversal or annulment by the majority in interest of the bondholders of any action of the trustee in declaring the principal sums of the bonds due, and nothing to indicate that any such election had been made by the trustee; but, on the contrary, it plainly shows upon its face, as do the findings of the master, and the findings and decree of the court below, that that letter was the first step taken looking to the foreclosure of the mortgage in question. Nearly one year thereafter, and after the defendant railway company had entered its general appearance to the original bill, to wit, on the 28th day of July, 1894, the complainant did exercise its election, and did declare the principal sums of all the outstanding bonds due and payable because of the default on the part of the defendant railway company in the payment of the coupons annexed to the bonds maturing August 1, 1893, and of its default in the payment of the amount required to be paid August 1, 1893, into the sinking fund to be created pursuant to the provisions of the mortgage. So far as the record shows, that was the only election ever made by the trustee, and with it theré was no interference on the part of the majority in interest of the *187 bondholders at any time, so far as appears; nor does it appear that the majority in interest of the bondholders ever waived such election on the part of the trustee.

It is, however, further insisted on the part of the appellant that the election made by the complainant, after the commencement of the suit and during its pendency, declaring the principal sums of the outstanding bonds due, constituted subject-matter for a new suit, and made a new case which could not he properly brought into the original suit by amended bill, and, furthermore, that if if could, such amended bill required the issuance of another subpoena, without the issuance of which the appearance of counsel thereto for the defendant was without effect. The sole office of the writ of subpoena is to bring the defendant into court in order that the court may acquire jurisdiction over his person. “A general appearance,” said the supreme court in Creighton v. Kerr, 20 Wall. 8, 12 , “waives all question of the service of process. It is equivalent to a personal service.” The record shows that in tills cause the defendant stipulated by its solicitor to file an answer to the amended hill upon the merits, in consideration of an extension of time given it for that purpose, and in pursuance of that stipulation did afterwards tile such an answer to the amended bill, duly verified by its vice president. It thus voluntarily submitted itself to the jurisdiction of the court, which was a waiver of the service of process having for its object the bringing of the defendant into court. The new matter brought into the suit by the amended bill was the election exercised by the complainant, declaring the principal sums of the outstanding bonds immediately due and payable. This was properly the subject of a supplemental bill; but, where such matter is introduced into the suit by amendment to the original bill, objection must be made by demurrer, plea, or answer; otherwise, it: is waived. Fost. Fed. Prac. (2d Ed.) § 165; Brown v. Higden, 1 Atk. 291; Archbishop of York v. Stapleton, 2 Atk. 136; Wray v. Hutchinson, 2 Mylne & K. 235. In this case no such objection was taken. On tlie contrary, the parties stipulated in writing, whereby, in consideration of an extension of time within which to plead, the defendant railway company expressly waived the right to file any plea or demurrer, but agreed to file an answer to the merits, which it afterwards did, duly verified by its vice president.

The third point made on behalf of the appellant is answered by the ninety-second equity rule prescribed by the supreme court for the government of the courts of equity of the United States. It is as follows:

By the terms of the decree appealed from, the deficiency judgment provided for is not for the benefit of the complainant, but is in favor of the complainant as trustee. The amount of such deficiency, like the amount realized by the sale of the mortgaged property, after de *188 ducting costs et cetera, is to be paid to tbe bondholders according to their respective interests. A special prayer for a judgment for such deficiency as may be found to exist, while proper and the better practice, is not absolutely essential. Under the prayer for general relief, which the amended bill contained, such judgment may be given. Story, Eq. Pl, §§ 40, 41; 1 Pom. Eq. Jur. 161; Tayloe v. Insurance Co., 9 How. 406 ; Jones v. Van Doren, 130 U. S. 684 , 9 Sup. Ct. 685.

Ñor did the court below err in inciuding in its decree of sale tbe 2,500 shares of tbe .capital stock of the Union Depot Company of Spokane Falls. It is true that that company was an independent corporation, organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the state of Washington; and that the ownership of a portion of its stock by the defendant railway company did not and could not confer upon the latter any power to mortgage the property of the depot company. Humphreys v. McKissock, 140 U. S. 304, 312 , 11 Sup. Ct. 779. But, while the agreement of lease entered into between tbe Union Depot Company and the Seattle, Lake Shore & Eastern Railway Company and the Washington & Idaho Railroad Company, embodied in the report of the master, shows that the Union Depot was erected upon property belonging to the Union Depot Company, the complainant, but for the stipulation entered into by counsel for the respective parties, might have been able to show by proof that the Union Depot Company acquired the land upon which the Union Depot wras erected from the defendant railway company, in consideration of the 2,500 shares of the capital stock of the depot company, and that at the time of such acquisition the land was subject to tbe complainant’s mortgage. Under such circumstances, the stock representing the interest of the defendant railway company in the depot used in connection with its road might he covered by the complainant’s mortgage, and, since it is possible that such proof might have been made by the complainant, the stipulation of counsel, entered into before the master, to the effect that the 2,500 shares of the capital stock of the depot company were covered by the mortgage to the complainant, must be held conclusive of the fact upon the parties.

In speaking of the binding character upon parties of stipulai ions between their counsel, in regard to proof, Chief Justice Shaw, in the case of Lewis v. Sumner, 13 Metc. (Mass.) 269, said:

The shares of stock in the Union Depot Company being thus stipulated to be covered by the mortgage were, like all the other property covered by it, embraced by the complainant’s bill. Besides, no objection was at any time made in the court below to the bill upon the ground that the allegations were not broad enough to embrace the shares of stock in question; nor was that objection made in any assignment of error. The judgment is affirmed, with costs.