[blocks in formation]

the several coupons belonging thereto." Upon foreclosing the mortgage, the trustee obtained judgment against the guarantor company for a deficiency.

Held: (1) That whether the guaranty were treated as having created an aggregation of as many obligations as there were bonds, each constituting a separate contract between the guarantor and the respective bondholder, or a single obligation for the benefit of the bondholders collectively, in either case there was a merger of the original cause or causes of action in the single judgment recovered by the trustee.

(2) The judgment being held as an unit by the trustee, for the benefit of all the bondholders, a suit to enforce it by a majority of them, though alleged to be on behalf also of all others similarly situated, could not be maintained without joining the trustee as a necessary party.

(3) In such suit, for the purpose of testing the District Court's jurisdiction on the basis of diverse citizenship, the trustee, though made a defendant, must be realigned as a plaintiff, no hostility on its part appearing beyond a refusal to institute the action, assignable to no other motive than to aid the federal jurisdiction, and its real attitude being friendly as evinced by its answer.

One corporation, after guaranteeing bonds of another, passed into a receivership in the District Court which ended in foreclosure of its own bonds and sale of its property, without reservation in the decree of liens or similar rights or power of the court concerning them. Meanwhile by independent proceedings in a state court the bonds of the second company were foreclosed and a deficiency judgment was rendered against the first company on the guaranty, which judgment being presented as a claim in the District Court proceedings was rejected because the first company's liability to pay it was contingent at the date set for proving claims in that court. Held, that a suit brought later in the District Court upon the ground that by its decree the equities of persons interested in the deficiency judgment were wrongly ignored and seeking to have that judgment impressed as a lien upon the property so sold, was not within the District Court's jurisdiction as a suit ancillary to the foreclosure proceedings in which its decree was rendered.


THE case is stated in the opinion.
Mr. A. S. Gilbert for appellants.

Mr. Richard Reid Rogers for appellees.

Opinion of the Court.

244 U.S.

MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS delivered the opinion of the


This appeal presents the single question whether the District Court erred in dismissing the bill for want of jurisdiction, on the ground that the controversy involved was not one between citizens of different States. The question was duly certified in conformity to § 238 of the Judicial Code. The facts are these:

The Twenty-eighth and Twenty-ninth Street Crosstown Railroad Company, of New York City, issued, on October 1, 1896, bonds to the amount of $1,500,000, and secured them by a mortgage of its property to the Central Trust Company. The Metropolitan Street Railway Company having previously leased the Crosstown Railroad, delivered with the mortgage stamped on each of the bonds a guaranty to the Trust Company in the following terms:

"FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the Metropolitan Street Railway Company hereby guarantees to the Trustee of the within-mentioned mortgage, for the benefit of the holders thereof, punctual payment of the principal of the within bond and the interest thereon at the time and in the manner therein specified and according to the tenor of the several coupons belonging thereto."

In September, 1907, the Metropolitan Company passed into the hands of receivers appointed by the Circuit (now District) Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. Soon thereafter default was made in the payment of interest on the Crosstown bonds. The customary bondholders' committee was formed; and 1373 of the 1500 bonds outstanding were deposited with it. At its request the Trust Company declared the bonds due and brought suit in the Supreme Court of New York to foreclose the mortgage. The court by special order granted an application of the Trust Company for permission to liquidate, in the foreclosure suit, its claim against

[blocks in formation]

the Metropolitan Company on the guarantee. For that purpose the Metropolitan Company was joined as defendant; and a deficiency judgment for $1,745,344.21 was entered against it on February 20, 1912, in favor of the Trust Company.

The property of the Metropolitan Company had meanwhile been administered by receivers appointed by the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York; and the several committees representing its bondholders, stockholders and creditors had adopted a plan and agreement for the reorganization of that company. Pursuant thereto its franchise and assets had been, on January 1, 1912, transferred to a new corporation, the New York Railways Company; and the securities and cash issued in exchange therefor were distributed among security holders, creditors, and otherwise, as in the plan provided. No provision was made in the plan for adjusting the liability of the Metropolitan Company arising out of its guaranty of the Crosstown bonds. The District Court refused to allow the claim on the deficiency judgment to be proved in the Metropolitan receivership; because the date as of which claims against the property were ordered to be proved was January 15, 1908; and the claim on the guaranty was at that date contingent merely. Consequently neither the Committee nor the Trust Company representing the Crosstown bondholders assented to the plan for reorganizing the Metropolitan Company.

In October, 1913, the members of the Crosstown bondholders' Committee, suing on behalf of themselves and "all other similarly situated bondholders," brought suit in the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York against the New York Company, the Metropolitan Company and the Central Trust Company, to enforce out of the property of the New York Company satisfaction of the liability of the Metropolitan Com

[blocks in formation]

pany arising out of its guaranty. The bill set forth facts to bring the case within the rule declared in Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. Boyd, 228 U. S. 482, and Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. Guardian Trust Co., 240 U. S. 166; and as reason for the suit being brought in the name of the bondholders alleged the following:

"That the defendant Central Trust Company of New York holds the said judgment against the defendant Metropolitan Street Railway Company, amounting to $1,745,344.21, for the benefit of and as the trustee for the plaintiffs and the other holders, of said bonds of the Twenty-eighth and Twenty-ninth Streets Crosstown Railroad Company hereinbefore described; and that the reason why this action is brought by the plaintiffs and why the Central Trust Company of New York is made a party defendant is that the plaintiffs are the lawful owners and holders of said bonds in the amount hereinbefore alleged, and the beneficial and equitable owners of said judgment held by the defendant Central Trust Company of New York; and that the defendant Central Trust Company of New York has refused to bring this action after due demand by the plaintiffs upon said defendant Central Trust Co. of N. Y., although the plaintiffs have offered proper indemnification to the said defendant Central Trust Company of New York, as such Trustee, to institute this suit to enforce the rights of the Trustee and of the bondholders under said judgment and guarantee made by said defendant Metropolitan Street Railway Company as aforesaid."

Jurisdiction of the District Court was rested wholly on diversity of citizenship, plaintiffs being all citizens and residents of States other than New York, and the three defendants, corporations organized under the laws of that State. The Trust Company filed an answer in substance joining in the prayer of the bill and admitting its allegations. The New York Railways Company besides answering to the merits, alleged:

Opinion of the Court.

"That the interests of the plaintiffs, and all other security holders, and the interests of said defendant Central Trust Company of New York, are identical and in all respects similar to the interests of the plaintiffs, and all other owners or holders of bonds secured by the mortgage ; that the parties to this action should be realigned by the Court, and placed according to their interests in the subject-matter of this suit, and for the reasons hereinbefore alleged, and for divers other reasons appearing on the face of the Bill upon the trial of this action, this defendant alleges that this Court is without jurisdiction to entertain this complaint, or to give judgment for the relief demanded therein."

244 U.S.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

It also appeared by stipulation that the holders of a large part of the Crosstown bonds deposited with the committee were citizens and residents of New York.

Plaintiffs admit that in respect to the Crosstown Company no cause of action on the bond vested in any one bondholder; since the bondholders were bound by the terms of the mortgage under which all right to sue on the bonds and to foreclose the mortgage was in the Trust Company. But they insist that the rights of the bondholders against the Metropolitan Company on the guaranty were entirely distinct from their rights against the Crosstown Company on the bonds; that the guaranty vested in the holder of each bond a cause of action on which he could sue in his own name; that the original guaranty to the Trust Company was a naked promise to one for the benefit of another; that the judgment obtained by the Trust Company belongs to the holders of the bonds; that it is in this suit merely a "use plaintiff," a title owner of the judgment who owes no duty to the plaintiff or other bondholders with reference thereto, has no interest in the result of the suit and need not have been made a party thereto; and that being a merely formal party should be disregarded in determining the question

« ForrigeFortsett »