The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1896-04-17

from the other assets of the corpora
ton, and TO 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 to be
made is under the control .of Claus
Spreckels. the alleged claimant Of tie
stock, and that it would thus be more &C
cessible to him. The defendant corpora
ton or the bank would be suable by the
plaintiff FOR the dividend. at the option
o. me plaintiff In King V. Paterson.
supra, this is discussed and the Court
holds that though in limited sense
every deposit held TO be paid by an
other is a trust, the true relation be-
tween the stockholder 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 sung tn corporation, the Court said
the debtor has 10 right without the
consent of the creditor, express or i'm
piled. to intrust q third party with the
fund for the purpose of payment" and
the corporation was held responsible in
g suit ar law.
Another ground claimed 10 support
the bill is that il will prevent a multi
plicity of suits, the bill alleging that a
monthly dividend of one per cent has
been declared, and if these are withheld
the plaintiff would be driven TO bring
a 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 writers and in subse-
Quent decisions TO support the proFc-
sition of the bill that equity will en-
force payment of a dividend unjusily
withheld These are T-e Roy v. The
Globe Insurance Co., > Edwards Chan
Gerry R. CSC, and Beers V. Bridgeport
Spring Co. ~ Conn. Il. 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 CLERKS Oh a
bank had been filed cor 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 il fell back into the
general property of the company. An
other question was involved in this
case; a building of the stockholder
plaintiff was insured by the company
the company, being insolyent, 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 10 claim and receive
the unearned portion of the premium.
We find, as was stated in King '. Pat
erson and H. r. R. R. Co. Supra, p. 500
that the case does not clearly define
the precise character of the relation
between the Stockholder and the cor
poration in respect TO the dividend"
but suggest as q 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, u Conn, II, q 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.
Jurisdiction 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
W u dASAC4 " plUS dICOuAl lAC
dividends to the credit of the stock
holder. Here was a clear case of the
misapplication 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
certificates Of stock TO the rightful own
ers and TO compel them to pay divi-
dends to the same. Pratt V. R. R Co.,
126 Mass. "a; Sewell V Boston Water
Power Co,4 Allen 2S2; Telegraph Co.
'. Davenport, 81 L. S. 3e9 Equity hav-
ing jurisdiction to compel the issue OF
certificates Of stock, it would follow
that it would compel the payment of the
accrued dividends and a resort to law
would not Be necessary.
Beng unable TO distinguish the case
before US from any other case be-
tween any other creditor and debtor
for money had and received, where the
debtor declines TO pay because a third
person claims the sum, We hold that a