The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1894-08-24
WHOOWNS THE STOCK
ISrsI Tangle in Which Several
Persons Are Caught.
SLIP BETWEEN TRANSFERS.
~-.~h,s fa Purchase Of Broadway In
yestnent stock Caused By Ia
tanetion-coaxs Notes.


=. rrport Of his investigation - 70 the
.-.,<rfy in ths possession Of or formerly
r.~asd 5y the defendants in the case OF
rsonss NeDonough Va Charles and
az. Craig. his duty being to nn-
ave- legal tangle and find out. II posss-
{. xho il the lawful owner Of fifty-thres
.1srs, Of stock IN the Broadway Invest
r.st Company, Of Seattle. The referee
- appointed by Judge Langley Last
lsrl 70 conduct the proceedings tnsti-
,zssd By the plaintiff supplementary 10
.s<eufion and TO investigate the DISPOSE
ssa Of the property formerly Owned BY
IL asssndanss as husband and wife, with
sss OBJECT Of getting the Law IN regard TO
sse transfer Of the stock
us has had 10 solve the question
xsssher the stock il still the property Of
.ke cssigs or either Of them, 80 as to be
eAsrsxable With the plaintiffs judgment
gsrsn against them last April, when an
lsIasctton was issued restraining the
Dsosdssy Investment Company from
trznsfsrring upon ifs books any Of the
stock In question and prohibiting the de-
tssdanfs and r. r. Cook and the First
sssienai bank from disposIng OF the
Stock
The referee finds that prior TO December
8 1874, Charles Craig gave the bank
yromissoFy note for $1,000. giving as col
Is.<rsl bis certificate for tifty-thres shares
q ne stock assigned in blank. December
8 lsel, Craig, deeming himself unit 10
e9aduct business. decided TO his wife all OF
Is community interest in their property.
On May 7. 1893. Anna Craig transferred
shs stock to i. +. Cook. while IL sas still
laid By the bank as security for the note.
4 fsw days later the transaction was
registered on the books OF the company
snd new certificate issued TO Cook and
Jeff sith the bank, assigned in blank. The
bank therefore accepted Cooks note In
lieu o. Craig's. the latter being surrendered
and cancelled
At the time Of the issuance Of the In
junction. April 4. 1894. the stock still stood
ca the eompany's books in Cooks name,
sad vas still held by the bank in pledge.
After Mrs. Craig sold the stock TO Cook.
he authorized her to again sell IL for him.
and arranged for her to pay the
interest on his note. and late
10 February, 1888. she sold IL
% ]. q. Niggle for $500, claiming
70 set as the agent of Miss Cook. OF this
price 81 500 was TO be paid in cash 10 Mira
Craig for Miss Cook. and the remaining
tIoo0 to be paid by substituting Siggle's
note for Cooks at the bank Niggie paid
ths 1850 in cash the day following the
purchase and requested the bank to accept
his note in place OF Cooks note.
The bank agreed on condition that the
stock be transferred on the books TO
a.
the transfer made, but as Gov. Mct5raw,
the secretary Of the company and presi-
dent Of the bank. VAS out of the city. the
transfer could not be made until his re-
turn. This delay. through no fault OF
Niggie's. proved longer than expected. and
before the transfer was made. it vas pre-
vented by the injunction on April &
Daring the interval between the issuance
Of the stock ana the injunction Niggle
paid interest monthly 20 the bank on
Cooks note.
The referee finds from the evidence that
Niggie acted in good faith throughout
and that SO far as appears he had no no
tee of any thing which should put him on
his guard in dealing with the stock As
20 the value OF the stock ct the time
kiggls purchased il. Gov. McGraw.
secretary Of the company, testified
that the assets OF the company consisted
almost exclusively of real estate, but that
be considered his stock in the company
worth par. Niggle testified that he con-
sidered the stock worth IS cents on the
dollar. The plaintiffs counsel sought to
question Niggie's being really par-
chaser in good faith. but there
vas no evidence 90 warrant this.
The low price paid for the stock by Mig
sic. certainly ia itself meant nothing in
toe face OF the great financial depression
stisting. Nor could the fact that Niggls's
dealings were wholly with Mrs. Craig In
stead OF Miss Cook be made TO have any
significance. in view OF Niggle's being
gwen to suppose that Mrs. Craig Was act
iak only as Miss Cooks agent.
The question raised by the plaintiff IL
whether Craig owns the stock or some
other person as custodian or trustee for
him. The referee states that the evidence
clearly answers tn the negative. since II
dsscloses that Niggle is the absolute owner
and Is entitled to the possession subject
- the rights of che bank.
The referee states in conclusion that the
scope OF such an injunction 10 clearly
shown TO be only TO prevent disposition
hesng made OF any property then
actually belonging 60 the Judgment
debtor and within his possession
o. eentroi. whereas this stock
had eeea sold aye weeks before 10 an limo
esai buyer in good faith. The evidence
clearly showed that Niggse had done all
hs reasonably could 10 secure = transfer to
htm on the eompAny's books. and that all
that prevented this was the plain
Nns iajunctlon. Practically AL Of
iae courts which give preference
% an attaching or execution creditor over
psier uRFecordedi assignments of the
sseck, bold that notice by the creditor OF
tas prior assignment, defeats its priority.
Therefore, IA any view. Niggls's rights
Seaid appear 60 be prior and superior TO
AaY rights which the plaintiff could secure
EsssRF - A.