Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/811

796 FEDERAL REPOfiTEB. �money would belong and be distributed to the persons -who -were at that time bondholders, and the right to it would net pass to persons subsequently acquiring the bonds, unless they expressly acquired the right to it also. The claims of the bondholders against the trustees would not be upon the bonds themselves, like the claims against the obligors in the bonds, although they would be on account of the bonds, but would be claims against the trustees personally for the moneys received to the use of the bondholders, and these claims would not be assignable at law, although they might be in equity. In a suit or proceeding upon the bonds themselves, the production of the bonds and coupons, or the allegation of their ownership, might import that the holder had held them at the time of the accruing of the interest incidental to the debt, and entitle him to recover for the whole; but not so as to a claim not upon the bonds, but for money received to the use of the bondholders. The production of the bonds would not make out a cause of action or claim for relief on account of that money. More would have to be shown, and enough more to make out a cause of action or ground for relief, and that would in- clude showing a right to the money at the time it was received. The orators fall short of showing sueh right. And if the orators had been holders of the bonds ever after they were issued, and had so shown in their bill, it would be incumbent on them to show that their trustees, or those holding the property in place of the trustees, did receive money belonging to them, or did so conduct themselves with the property as to make themselves accountable for money as if they had received it. The bill does not allege that the trustees received any money belonging to the bondholders prior to their appointment as receivers, nor that while they were in fact receivers they received anything more than enough to pay the Vermont & Canada rent, which was to be first paid; nor that they ceased to be receivers in fact until the maldng of the compromise agreement, nor then other- wise than by the force of that agreement. That agreement is an- nexed to the bill and made a part of it. The bill does not show that the orators are not bound and willing to stand upon that agree- ment. If they are, then, as to them, the income raised afterwards was to be distributed according to that agreement. Some of that income was to go to the Vermont & Canada Eailroad Company for rent ; how much, does not appear. A gross amount of income for a term of years is stated; but whether that amount was greater than the amount of rent to be first paid is not shown or stated. The same ��� �