Waterman v. Title Guarantee & Trust Co.
Opinion of the Court
Defendant seeks to dismiss the complaint on the principal ground that a representative action is not maintainable. Plaintiffs are holders of guaranteed mortgage certificates issued by the defendant covering the property in Brooklyn known as the
The argument of the defendant that this is a representative action in tort is not tenable. The second cause of action states a clear violation of a trust duty on the part of the defendant. It is maintainable by plaintiffs in a representative capacity. The nature of the first cause of action is a little more doubtful. The inducement by the defendant whereby plaintiffs agreed to enter into the trust relation is not in itself a breach of trust. The action as pleaded is either one in fraud or damages for breach of warranty. Such an action under the circumstances is not maintainable in a representative capacity because there is no showing that the distribution of the certificates was under common warranties or representations. Plaintiffs may maintain the first cause of action individually, but to do so they must plead separately the cause arising to each individual plaintiff, both those named and those who wish to come in.
The motion directed to the second cause of action is denied. As to the first cause the motion is granted as indicated. Settle order.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.