road, and of the acquisition of the entire land grant, and it did not seek a judicial sale of the mortgaged premises. Nothing further transpired in this suit until September 9, 1878, when, by leave of the court, an amended and supplemental bill was filed, in which, among other things, the death of Bigelow was suggested. This bill recited the substance of the original bill, and alleged that after the filing of the original bill such arrangements had been made between the bond holders and the railroad Company that the road had been completed and the balance of the land grant had been earned. This arrangement included the funding of a large amount of coupons, which, for that purpose, were detached from the bonds, and sales of over three millions of additional bonds, and the use of funds thus obtained in the work of construction.
The bill further alleged the surrender of the road to the railroad company by the Philips & Colby Construction Company, which previous to such surrender the construction company had operated, the appointment by Stewart of Edwin H. Abbot as joint trustee in place of Bigelow under the mortgage, and his substitution in place of Bigelow as a co-complainant in the suit, and the prayer of the bill was that complainants might have possession of the railroad, franchises and property covered by the mortgage, and that the railroad company might be barred and foreclosed as prayed in the original bill.
On the thirty-first day of October, 1878, Theodore Stern and William Lawson, owners of bonds secured by the mortgage before spoken of, as such bond holders, filed their independent bill complaining that the trustees under the mortgage had in various ways violated their trust, and asking that the mortgaged property be sold under a decree of foreclosure. The defendants in this bill were, the Wisconsin Central Railroad Company, Charles L. Colby, Gardner Colby, Rowland G. Hazard, Moses Taylor, John A. Stewart, Edwin H. Abbot and H. P. Spencer. The bill set out at considerable length the history of this railroad enterprise; alleged that complainants were not parties to what is known as the fund-
