Case ID: ohio-cc-ns_13/html/0267-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

TITLE TO CORPORATE STOCK.
    Circuit Court of Hamilton County.
    The Provident Savings Bank & Trust Company v. W. L. Voight.
    Decided, July 16, 1910.
    
      Corporations — Lost Certificate of Stock — Proceedings for a Reissue— Evidence as to Title, Legal und Equitable.
    
    While the fact that a lost certificate of stock, standing in the name of the plaintiff seeking a reissue thereof, would in the absence of other evidence be conclusive as to his title, an order of court for such a reissue will be reversed as against the weight of the evidence, where it appears that the evidence upon which the order was‘based showed that while the naked legal title was in the plaintiff the equitable title was in a corporation of which he was a member.
    
      Harmon, Colston, Goldsmith & Hoadly, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Scott Bonham, contra.
    Giffen, P. J.; Smith, J., and Swing, J., concur.
   The original action was brought by W. L. Yoight under favor of Section 3254-1-3, Revised Statutes, to compel the Provident Savings Bank & Trust Company to reissue to the plaintiff a certificate for 350 shares of the stock of that company, the original having been lost.

The only evidence that plaintiff was the owner of the certificate was that it was originally issued in his name, which in the absence of, other evidence would be conclusive of his title; but it was also shown, that the stock was paid for out of the funds of the Lewis Yoight & Sons Company, a corporation; that the transaction was, under the direction of the plaintiff, entered in the books of the company as a jrarehase of stock by the company; that at a stockholders’ meeting, as shown by the minutes, the stock was treated as that of the company; and by admissions of the plaintiff made to counsel for the receivers of the company, the title of the company is reaffirmed. It follows therefore that, while he had the naked legal title to the certificate and the stock of which it was evidence, the real ownership was in the company.

The judgment is not sustained by the evidence and will be reversed, the cause being remanded for a new trial. _