The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1893-10-17


clear case of hypothecatiOn the
pledgor may vote; the possession may
we'll continue with him consistently
with the nature of the contract and
the stock remain in his name. Till
enforced and the title made absolute
in the Pledge and the name changed
on the books he should be received to
vOte.h
have endeavored to examine the
authorities cited that are available on
both sides of this question, to wit:
Mcdonald VS.. Flower Brook Manfg.
Co., - VT, 30; Hubbell VS.. Drexell
& Co.. IL Fed. Rep Hoppin VS.. Buff
FUN, Il. l., SIS; Adderly vs. Storm
& Bailey, Hill, 624; People VS.. Rob-
inson, 81 Cal, 375, and l cannot find
single case where the naked question
as between a pledgor and Pledge, the
stock having been transferred as Sc
curity and that fact entered on the
books of the company, both parties
claiming the right to vote at meet
ing of the corporation, has been de-
cided.
In some cases where the Pledge has
voted it would seem as if he had
merely had the transfer made to him
by endorsement of the certificate and
having it noted on the books of the
company and taken n new certificate
in his name, the fact that it was done
as pledge not plainly appearing, and
in some cases the pledge has voted
with the acquieseence of the pledgor-
l am not aware of a case where the
entry on the stock book clearly shows
that the transfer was merely as seeur-
ity 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
the books are prima facie evidence as
to who possesses the stock. If Il
pledge has the stock absolutely
transferred to him, there being Moth
ing to indicate to the officers of the
corporation that it 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 81 record to
be as security, only, the pledgor may
Mr.. Atacfarlane 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-
ton before me is not whether at q
of the corporation he or his
Pledge can legally vote the stock, it
is simply whether in furtherance of
his equitable interest in this corpor-
alton which is a right of redemption,
be can proceed with the motion for
division of the land, one-half of which
is owned by his company. 1 am sit
ting as a Court of equity and must re-
gard the equitable interest of Mr..
Moreover, it appears by |
he record in the suit of Claus Spreck- |
els against Macfarlane on bill of |
,orclosure, that Macfarlane pledged |
his stock in question on the 31st of |
December, 1890, nearly year before |
his bill for partition was filed, and q |
note of it having been made on the
'NONh OOOEA Va AAAC OOh4 W Ipo OlAA-
,ers who are also officers in the
corporation, knowledge of the
pledge was had by this company dur
ng ali these proceedings and no OBJ
ection has been heretofore made
o Mr.. Slacfarlane's appearance as
tockholder of the Waikapu Sugar
on the ground that he had
'ledged the stock. Independently
therefore, of his right to vote it, he has
he right to proceed with the motion
or partition in the suit.
For these reasons / override the OBJ
ectiOns and the parties may proceed
o nominate commissioners in accor-
ance with the motion.
f. NJ. Hatch for plaintiff; A. S.
Iartwell and C. L. Carter for de-
endant.
Honolulu, Oct. 18th, 1898.