Railroad Companies v. Chamberlain

Mr. Cushing, for the appellant in the first case; Messrs. Cary and Carlisle, contra; the position of counsel being reversed in the cross-bill. We think that the court erred in dismissing the cross-bill. It was filed for the purpose of enforcing the judgment, which was in the Circuit Court, and could be filed in no other court, and was but ancillary to and dependent upon the original sui–an appropriate proceeding for the purpose of obtaining satisfaction. The lease was in the nature of a mortgage, and held only as collateral security, and followed the judgment.1 * The decree in the first suit must be affirmed, and that in the second reversed, and the cause remitted to the court below to enter a decree IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION.