Pioche daily record. [volume] (Pioche, Nev.) 1872-1876, 1873-09-26


~ to the Carriers.
g: W. CRANE, 4ss Montgy ST., San Francisco
T. STAIR. -.-...-...-....-..-...-. .hamiiton
CERTIFICATES OF MINING STOCK
NOT NEGOTIABLE.
Certificate. Mast he Transferred ON
the Books Before Title Can Pass.
Following is synopsis of Judge Nor
risons decision Ito which reference was
made by us yesterday in the case Of B.
F. Sherwood VS.. The Meadow Valley
Mining Company:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE.
First-On the 7th of April, 1878. Isaac
Levy was the owner of 20 shares of the
capital stock of the Meadow Valley Min
ing Company, and as evidence thereof
Levy then had in his possession cer-
tifcate, No. 7405, of said company, which
certificate was in the usual form, issued
to H. Schmeidell, Trustee, and was duly.
indorsed by him.
Second-On the 9TH OF April, 1873,
Levy lost said certificate, or the same
was stolen from him.
Third-On the Sth of April, 1873, upon
discovering his loss. Levy notified the
company that he was the owner Of said
certificate, and that the same had been
lost. or had been stolen from him.
Fourth-On the 18th Of May, 1878,
Levy produced to the company proof of
the loss OF said certificate, and thereup-
on, he and Schmeidell executed to the
Company, an assignment Of the 20 shares
of stock represented by said certificate,
and requested the company to issue an
other certificate in lieu OF the one which
had been lost or stolen.
Fifth--On the 18th Of May, 1873, on
the execution Of a sufficient bond Of in
demnity to the company, another cer-
tifcate for said 20 shares Of its stock was
issued by tue company in place of the
one which was lost, or stolen. to Henry
SchmeideM, Trustee, and the same was
delivered to Levy.
Sixth-On the 7th OF April, 1878, the
plaintiff purchased. in the usual course
of business, from Que H. Morrison, the
certificate which hal been lost by, or
which had been stolen from Levy, aud
the certificate was duly delivered to
plaintiff by Morrison.
Soventh-On the I'd day of July, 1873,
the plaintiff presented said certificate,
Endorsed as aforesaid by Schmeidell,
Trustee of the Company, offering to sur
render the same to the company and de-
manded the issuance to himself Of new
certificate for said 20 shares of stock,
which said company refused to do.
Eighth-It is admitted that previous
to the purchase by the plaintiff of said
certificate he had no actual notice that
Levy claimed to be the owner OF said
stock, or that said certificate had been
lost or stolen.
Ninth-It is further admitted that the
purchase of said stock by the plaintiff
was transaction in the regular course
Of business in the San Francisco stock
r.,r.a. srd in good faith for valuable
consideration, aud w.,nou. notice of any
adverse claim by the plaintiff.
Tenth-It is also admitted that when
such certificates OF stock are drawn in
favor OF q well known and responsible
Trustee, Il has been for ten years or
more the practice of brokers. and is the
usual practice in this market, to sell and
deliver such certificates of stock so drawn
and indorsed, by the mere delivery
thereof from hand to hand without any
transfer or other entry made on the
books Of the company. unless on account
of payment of dividends, election Of Off
GERS, or for some other reason the holder
wishes transfer and new certificate
and such certificates are so delivered
from one to another, on sales Of the
stock, without making inquiry at the
Office of the company or elsewhere as tC
want of title in the seller or other defec
in the stock sold
torro. .sirh;s a.r,;sa .Satu Sahna;
All Tr,s.oa IL a's .ha as sua. ~ =, tmant,
Sha,os 80 tha oa,,;,.i s,o.L ~, NJ
ow Vs,lav W;nit,a cnmmanr tr,nstara
bla on ~ hanLs - ~ g,",,,,,,n, h,, in
Jnrsaman, hsrson ana su,rapdar ~ III,
osr,;sos,. ""e' 'n'
WHAT coNsrirurSs PROOF OF rirLk'
On behalf of the plaintiff il is con
tended that party purchasing such
certificate as the one in question, il
good faith. and for valuable considera
ton, acquires the title thereto, although
the same was lost by or was stolen from
the real owner thereof
ARE CERTIFICATES NEGOTIABLE?
BUT II seems 70 me tna' .he cass mus
tnfn upon Me qaes.lon ~ne1het OF no
tnls certincate ot slock IL hegouaoie IN
oommefc'm sense. II ~ 49, .he P"rcnas lS.s
ei, III sooo ,a.u, n'o 'oI Va,"aoie oou
siaefatiop' sue takes 1ne cei.inca'e ss lrrespe'
1--WE Oh .ne inahhel ~ wnich lne sam
passed ont OF the hands OF the real owner
but Il 1t Is not nesouaole. another rui
applies, which Is, that the purchaser ge,
no better title than his vendor hat
That no one can transfer to another
better title than the one he has himself
iS a maxim" saws ChacellOr Kent talik