The Hawaiian gazette., 1893-09-19
OPINION or TIE COURT BY JUDGE COOPER.

SeQuent assignments OF the ceruncateS.
OPINION OF TIE COURT BY JUICE COOPER.
This IS sn appeal from the order Of
Circuit Judge Whiting decreeing
that 1I90 shares Of the capital stock
of the Waikspu Sugar Company
pledged by the defendant to Bishop
i Co. and now held by the plaintiff.
be sold at public auction for the pur
pose of paying a certain promissory
note made by the defendant to
Bishop * Co. for the sum of S123,-
3444.07. together with interest at the
rate of S per cent. per annum.
amounting to S31.110.1O. said note
being held by the plaintiff.
1t seems to Us that no error in the
decision or order of the Court below
has been pointed out.
The certificates Of stock were en-
dorsed in blank by Mscfsrlsne and
delivered to Bishop Il Co. at
the time the note wss given. This
in itself was sufficient to pass the
eouitsble title and the transaction
became 6 pledge and not chsttel
mortgage as contended for by the
defendant
Bishop & Co. the pledges upon
such endorsement and delivery
and under their irrevocsble power of
attorney to transfer the shares to
another person had a power cou
pied with an interest, and it gave
them the right to demand of the
company new certificates. The GER
tihcates however still remain in the
name of Mscfarlsne, but on the 1st
of April. 1890, FIVE days after the
date OF the note the following en-
dorsemeut was made upon the stub
of the company's stock book. After
giving the number of the certificates,
The above shares are duly assigned
by G. W. Mscfarlsne Of Honolulu to
Bishop & Co. of Honolulu as col
lateral for moneys had and received" "
Signed W. Ii. G. secretary.
This seems to comply with Section
1873 Of the Civil Code and would
preclude either Maefarlane or his
creditors disputiDg the transfer for
that purpose and further than this
Maefarlane is not concerned. And
We do not find that the memorandum
of pledge made at the time restricts
the right to realize upon the securi
ties TO Bishop il Co. The shares Of
stock were transferred ''as collateral
security for the payment Of the
above promissory note and of all
other notes and demands which the
said Bishop & Co. held or may hold
against me so long as they shall
hold the said security"
Upon the transfer of the note to
Spreekels, Bishop & 20. relinquished
their right to hold the security for
any other note or demand which they
might have held against Maefarlane,
but this does not give Macfarlane
any cause of complaint SO long as he
is not deprived Of his right to re-
deem his securities upon payment of
his debt. When collateral security
Is given OF property assigned for the
better protection or payment Of a
debt It shall be made effectual for the
purpose. and that not only to the
immediate party TO the security but
TO others who are entitled to the
debt" Stegrns vs. Bates, 116 Conn.
Bill
The transfer Of the note and shares
from Bishop d Co. to Bishop. and
from Bishop to the plaintiff. was a
sale Of their right in the note and tn
the securities. and We consider that
the certificates were negotiable with
the note itself and that the plaiutif
was therefore the proper party 70
sue
While Bishop d Co. were holding
the Msctarlsne note and the Waiks5
pu shares as security therefor. Mac
fsrlsne wrote e letter to Messrs
Thurston and Carter In
which he expressed q desire to begin
proceedings against tbs Hawaiian
Commercial 4 Sugar COMPANY for
rents, profits and dana = which he
considered to be due 10 i.e Waiksuu
Sugar Company for tie use OF eer-
tain lands known as tie Waikspu
Commons, and offered as eompensa-
ton sum II cash and also q uerceut-
age OF the amount which might be
recovered. and also authorized them. /
upon the approval Of Bishop & Co,
70 compromise the claim on which .
the proceedings were broupbt !
whether By sale Of q. w. Mscfsr. I
lanes stock OF Payment Of money. 4
To this proposition It is claimed 4
0y this defendant that Bishop & Co. /,
zr~-z~*o1 81 Il - Z