The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1896-04-17
OPINION OF THE COURT, BY JUDD

OPINION OF THE COURT, BY JUDD,
c. ].
This is the defendants appeal from a
decree of Circuit Judge Perry Overriding
2 demurrer TO the bill.
We adopt the following abstract G:
The bill from the decision appealed
from:
The bill alleges that the defendant Is
Z Hawaiian corporation: that Claus
Spreckels. of San Francisco, Cal, is its
vice-president; that complainant Is the
owner of FIVE thousand shares, being
ore-half of the capital stock ut said
company; that ina suit recently brought
by said Claus Spreekels against the
complainant in California, an injune-
ton issued against the complainant 5
receiving dividends thereon, mas since
been dissolved: that the defendant has
recently declared a dividend OF one dol
lar per share per month, the first OF
such dividends payable February Sd
last: that, after demand, the directors
OF the defendant corporation refuse to
pay to complainant his share of the
Spreckels has protested against such
payment. unless complainant shall fur
nish q bond of indemnity to the COM
panv. and announce their intention OF
placing the dividends in question on
special deposit in the bank Of Claus
Spreckels & Co.. of which said Claus
Spreckels 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
cause to him loss which would be in
capable of exact ascertainment-
The prayer is that defendant be de-
clared 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 a 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
veil defined in the case of Ford Y. East
hampton Rubber Thread Co., 15S Mass,
IS 1888. where the Court say: 1T seems
10 be well settled that. when 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
IS 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 il. each stockholder has a
light TO demand payment of the pro-
pOrtional part Of the dividend which
belongs TO his shares of stock and TO sue
The corporation for it if it is not paid on
demand" This view is abundantly sus-
tanned by text writers and cases. Mora
vetz, Corp. Secs. 235. $50, 451; Cook,
Stock and Stockholders, Sec. 545;
Wheeler V. Northwestern Sleigh Co., SO
Fed. Reporter. 34S; King V. Paterson
md H. R R. R. Co., 20 n. J. l., 50 and
504.
The plaintiff does not dispute that he
has a 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
corporation causes irreparable injury
10 plaintiff by injuriously 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
erty. The non-payment of interest on
q note affects its value, the delaying to
pay rent in one sense lessons the pres
ent value of the land TO the owner; but
these circumstances do not give equity
Jurisdiction TO compel payment of the
amount of the note or the rents of the
land We do not find that this is suf-
ficient to take the case out of the juris-
diction of law.
The alleged ground of Withholding
this dividend is that g third party
claims it This is not of itself a basis
for interference in equity.
Another ground for the intervention
of equity urged by plaintiff is that there
is a trust involved. It is claimed that
the dividend declared and set of by the
corporation from its other assets be-
comes a trust fund over which equity
has supervision to prevent a misappli-
cation, and that the declared intention
OF the corporation to place the dividend
in the hands of a bank in which the
third party claiming the dividend has
an interest would be a misapplication
of trust fund. II is not necessary to
draw the inference, from the defend
ants intention to place the money in a
bank, that this would be misapplica-
ton of trust fund The object of the
defendant may as well be TO completely
sever and individualize this dividend