The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1893-10-12

&; Co.. IL Fed Rep; Hoppin vs.. Buff
fun, 8 X. T., 5l3; 4 dderly VS.. Storm
& Barley, Hnl, 624; People VS.. Rob
inson, 81 Cal, 375, aud cannot find
single case wherr the naked question
rs retween pledgor and Pledge, the
stock having been transferred as re-
cuTity and that fact entered on the
books of the company, both parties
claiming the right To vote at meet
ing IF the corporation, has been de-
cided.
In some cases where the Pledge has
voted 1t would seem as il he had
merely had the transfer male to him
~ endorsement of the certificate and
having 1t noted on the books of the
company and taken new certificate
in lIis name, the fact that il was done
as Pledge not plainly appearing, and
in some cases the Pledge has voted
with the acquiescence OF the pledgor.
an not a ware of case where the
entry OH The stock book clearly shows
that the transfer was merely as secur-
fly and where the PLEDGE has voted
against the protest of the pledgor was
sustained by the Court. The officers Of
the corporation are not Obliged to go
behind the record and ascertain who
are the equitable owners of stock, but
be ks are prima Gle evidence as
To who Possesses the stock. If
PLEDGE has the stock absolutely
transferred TO him, there bling moth
ing to indicate to the officers OF the
corporation that il was by way Of
security, ] should say that he GER
tainly could vote the stock. But
under the contradiction of the author
Ity | am OF opinion that it is better to
follow the acknowledged custom of
this country, and hold that where the
transfer plainly appears OF record to
be as security, only, the p'edgor may
vote the STOCK. But L cannot see, if
Mr. NacfarIaue still has an equitable
interest in 1850 shares of the Wal
kapu Sugar Co, that Is one-half of
the stock, how his right to proceed
with the partition under the leave
given is affected by the question of
his right to vote the stock The ques
tiou before me is not whether at Il
meeting of the corporation he or his
| Pledge can legally vote the stock, it
IL simply whether i'll furtherauce of
| his equitable Interest in this cOTpor-
alton which il right OF redemption,
he can proceed with the motion for n
division of the land, one half of which
Is owned by his company. / am sit
ting as Court of equity and must re-
gard the equitable Interest of Mr..
IL dppcdIS ny
the record in the suit of Claus Spreck-
els against Macfarlane on a bill of
| forfeiture, that Macfarlane pledged
| this stock in question OH the 3lst of
December, 1890, nearly n year before
| this bill for partition was filed, and a
note of 1t having been made on the
stock book of the company by its Off
GERS who are also officers in the
| plaintiff corporation, knowledge of the
| pledge was had by this company dur
ing all these proceedings and no Oh
| lection has been heretofore made
to Mr.. Macfarlane's appearance as Il
stakeholder of the Waikapu Sugar
Company on the ground that he had
| pledged the stock. Independently
therefore of his right to vote it, he has
the right to proceed with the motion
| for partition in the suit.
For these reasons [ override the OBJ
! jectiOns and the parties may proceed
| to nominate commissioners III accOr-
| dance with the motion.
| F. NJ. Hatch for plaintiff; y. S
Hartwell and G. l.. Carter for do
| PENDANT.
Honolulu, Oct. 18th, 1898.