The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1896-04-15
OPINION OF THE COURT. BY JUDI

OPINION OF THE COURT. BY JUDD,
c. J.
This is the defendants appeal from a
decree OF Circuit Judge Perry OveIr"lng
a demurrc. 10 me bill
We adopL the following abstract q
the bill from the decision appealed
from:
The bill alleges that the defendant Is
a Hawaiian corporation: that Claus
Spreckels. of San Francisco, Cal, is its
vice-president; that complainant is the
owner of five thousand shares, being
one-half OF the capital stock or said
company; that in a suit recently brought
by said Claus Spreckels against the
complainant in California, an inJunc-
ton issued against the complainant
receiving dividends thereon, has since
been dissolved; that the defendant has
recently declared a dividend of one dol
lar per share per month, the first or
such dividends payable February Sd
last: that. after demand, the directors
OF the defendant corporation refuse TO
pay TO complainant his share OF the
dividends, on the ground that Claus
Spreckels has protested against SUCH
payment, unless complainant shall fur
nish a bond of indemnity TO the COM
pany, and announce their intention OF
placing the dividends in question on
special deposit in the bank of Claus
SpreckeIs & Co.. of which said Claus
SpreckeIs is one of the members; and
that the retention of such dividend will
materially affect the value of complain
ants shares for purposes of sale, and
tn hi vxyhi n
capable OF exact entertainment.
The prayer is that defendant be de-
cIared a trustee to the use of the COM
plainant of all such dividends now and
henceforth payable, and be enjoined
from paying any of said dividends into
said bank
The sole question for us is whether
the plaintiff has plain, complete and
adequate remedy at law.
The nature OF the fund which the
plaintiff asks the Court to compel the
defendant corporation TO pay him is
we'll defined in the case of Ford V. East
hampton Rubber Thread Co. 15S Mass,
SO 1899, where the Court say: 1T seems
to be we'll settled that. when a dividend
has been fully declared, the corporation
thereby manifests its intention that the
amount of dividend should be consid
cred as having been separated from the
other property of the corporation. and
as having become the individual prop
erty of the stockholders, and that. there |
fore. when the dividend becomes pay
able according TO the terms of the vote |
declaring it, each stakeholder has a |
right to demand payment of the pro- |
poTtional part of the dividend which |
belongs to his shares of stock and to sue
tse corporation for it if it is not paid on
This view is abundantly sus-
tanned by text writers and cases. Nora
wetz. Corp. Secs. 235. $50. 451: Cook.
Stock and Stockholders. Sec. 545;
Wheeler V Northwestern Sleigh Co.. SO
Fed. Reporter. 34S; King V. Paterson
and H. R. r. r. Co., % n. J. l.. 80 and
jO4.
The plaintiff does not dispute that he
has remedy by action at law against
the corporation, but claims that he is
entitled to relief in equity on several
grounds. Among them is that the
remedy at law is not ample, because
the retention of the dividends by the
causes iTreparable injury
10 plaintiff by injuriousIy affecting the +
value of the stock for the purposes Of
sale. Any withholding of money due
which is the product Of property may
be said TO affect the value of the prop
7rty- The non-payment OF interest on I
z note affects its value. the delaying to T
pay rent in one sense lessons the pres ,
ent value of the land to the owner; but !
-hese circumstances do not give equity ,
to compel payment of the :
amount of the note or the rents of the {
and We do not find that this is suf-
icieut TO take the case out of the iuriS-
LECTION of law. 7
The alleged ground of withholding |
his dividend is that a third party
laims it. This is not of itself a basis
or interference in equity.
Another ground for the Intervention
f equity urged by plaintiff is that there
5 a trust involved. 1t is claimed that
ne dividend declared and set off by the '
corporation from its other assets be- e
ONES a trust fund over which equity e
as supervision 10 prevent a misappIi- d
alton, and that the declared intention =
t the corporation 10 place the dividend
q the hands OF a bank in which the
bird party claiming the dividend has [
n interest would be a misapplicatiOn &
trust fund. 1t is not necessary TO p
raw the inference from the defend =
nt's intention TO place the money in a u
ank, that this would be misapplica- L
on of trust fund. The object of the C,
may as well be to completely II