The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1896-04-15

/ sever ana individualize this dividend
! from the other assets Of the corpora
/ Jion, and 20 fix more clearly its char
acter as the property Of whoever IS the
| legal owner Of the stock.
The bill does not state that the bank
/ IN which the deposit is proposed 70 be
/ made is under the control Of Claus
! SpreckeIs. the alleged claimant Of the
stock and that il would thus be more ac-
/ cessible 10 him. The defendant corpora
! tion or The bank would be suable by the
plaintiff for the dividend, at the oution
Of the plaintiff. IN King V. Paterson
SUPRA. this is discussed and the Court
/ holds that though IN a limited sense
| every deposit held 10 be paid by an
| other is a trust, the true relation be-
| tween the stakeholder and the corpora
/ ton holding the declared dividend IS
| that Of creditor and debtor. In this
| case the dividend had been deposited
| BY the corporation in a trust company
which had failed, and on the stockhOld-
er suing the corporation, the Court said
the debtor has no right without the
| consent of the creditor express or i'm
piled. to intrust a third party with the
fund for the purpose of payment" and
the corporation was held responsible IN
a suit at law.
Another ground claimed to support
the bill is that it will prevent multi
plicity of suits, the bill alleging that
monthly dividend Of one per cent has
been declared, and if these are withheld
the plaintiff would be driven TO bring
2 fresh suit for each dividend. There
is no allegation in the bill upon which
TO found this argument. and we do not
?
doubtful if equity would decree in this
case that all subsequent dividends
should be paid TO plaintiff. The plain
tiff might meanwhile dispose OF his
shares or the financial circumstances
of the defendant corporation might be
materially altered.
Two cases are cited by counsel for
plaintiff and they are constantly re
ferred to by text writer's and IN subse-
quent decisions to support the prOFc-
sition of the bill that equity will en-
force payment of a dividend unjustly
withheld. These are T-e Roy V. The
Globe Insurance Co, Edwards Chan
Gerry r. 656, and Beers V. Bridgeport
Spring Co. ~ Conn. II. In neither of
these cases was the Jurisdiction of
equity questioned. n the first case a
dividend had been declared by the de-
PENDANT corporation and CHEEKS OIL
bank had been filed tor each stock
holders dividend Four-fifths of the
checks had been called for when a great
fire rendered the corporation insolvent,
and its affairs went into the hands of
receivers and the question raised by the
bill of the stakeholder who had not ia
ken his check was whether the dividend
had been set apart, Notwithstanding
the insolvency of the company and the
passing of their affairs into receivers
hands, or whether it fell back into the
general property of the company. An
other question was involved in this
case; a building of the stakeholder
plaintiff was insured by the company;
the company, being insolvent, offered to
cancel the policy and the receivers be-
ing doubtful of their authority to re-
turn any portion of the premium with
out the direction of the court, can
celled the policy with reservation Of the
plaintiffs right to claim and receive
the Unearned portion Of the premium.
We find, as was stated in King V. Pat
erson and H. r. r. r. Co. supra, p. 500
that the case docs not clearly define
the precise character of the relation
between the stakeholder and the cor
poration in respect to the dividend, :"
but suggest as a possible explanation of
the assumption of the jurisdiction OF
equity that the case was perhaps
brought under the statutes authOriz-
ing the appointment of receivers of in
solvent corporations, to ascertain to
what purpose the fund should be ap-
piled.
In the second case, ~ Conn, II, a div
idend had been declared, made payable
at such times as might be directed by
the board but the corporation had in
vested these funds in improvements. |
in equity was assumed be- |
cause no time had been fixed at which |
the dividends were to be paid; and the |
court held that the corporation had no |
right to transfer to surplus account the |
dividends to the credit of the stock |
holder. Here was clear case Of the |
of the dividend.
In the case before US the clear right |
Of the plaintiff to the dividend is shown
without any valid defense for not pay
ing it. The non existence of a legal de-
tense does not of itself give equity jur-
isdictiOn. Other cases are referred to
by plaintiffs counsel where equity is
applied to compel corporations to issue
of stock to the rightfuI own
eTs and to compel them to pay divi-
lends to the same. Pratt V. R. R. Co.,
I26 Mass. 444; Seweu V Boston Water
Power Co.,4 Allen 2S2; Telegraph Co.
:. Davenport, 81 U. S. 369 Equity hav-
ng Jurisdiction to compel the issue of
certificates of stock, it would follow
hat it would compel the payment of the
accrued dividends and resort to law
would not be necessary.
Beng unable to distinguish the case
before us from any other case be-
ween any other creditor and debtor
or money had and received, where the
lebtor declines TO pay because a third
)eTsOn claims the sum- we hold that a
)lain and adequate remedy at law is
to the plaintiff. and are there
ore compelled TO sustain the demurrer.
Decree accordingly.
Hartwel. Thurston & Stanley for
Plaintiff; w. a. Kinney and S. VI. Bal