Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1899-06-23
ON ASSESSABLE STOCKS.
Continued from Page 3.

the stock. The Appellate Division
ordered judgment to be eutered
below on a directed verdict, ex.
ceptions, etc, having been over
ruled. Plaintiff appeals.
Martin, j.. in part: "This
brings Us to the second question,
whether the transfer by the de.
PENDANT to Van Every was made
In good faith, or whether there
was evidence which presented a
question of fact for the jury as to
whether the tranfer was absolute
or otherwise. In deter
mining the question of the good
faith of the transfer from the de-.
PENDANT to Van Every, the circum
.tances disclosed bv the evidence
should be considered. They were
peculiar in many respects. 1t
must be conceded that the corpor-
alton was at the time greatly en-
barrassed, if not insolvent. (.
The consideration for the
transfer Of $3.50 par value Of
the stock, upon which there had
already been paid $3.50 upon
calls made by the corporation,
was the SUN of three dollars.
The purchaser was a waiter 10 a
restaurant where the defendant
had taken a portion of his meals.
He did not even know how many
shares he had purchased, nor
from whom they originally Games
de had not seen the crrtlficater
when he made the pure base, not
did he apply to have the stock
transferred to him upon the
books of the company. That
was done by the defendant.
tie was never seen by the
officers of the plaintiff, or known
to them. When all these facts
are considered, with the added
one that the defendant procured
some person unknown to Van
Every to purchase his stock, a, d
that the transfer of it by HIM was
not completed by transfer upon
the books of the company, it can
hardly be said, as matter of law,
that the defendant parted with his
stock in good faith so Us to be re.
lieved from his responsibility as a
stockholder Of the plaintiff as to
its creditors and the other stock
holders. Ii this was all of the
case, we should find little difficulty
in holding that the question
whether the transfer was absolute
or a more sham was question of
fact which should have been sub
mitted to the jury.
ave, however, find that the sale
OF the stock by the defendant to
Van Every was not only ratified
by the plaintiff ny cancelling it's
certificate issued to the defendant
and issuing new certificate to the
purchaser, but that after the lapse
of year and eight months it
commenced an action against Van
Every as a stockholder to recover
the amount of a call it had made
upon the shares of stock then
standing in his name, and subse-
quently obtained judgment
against him therefor, which it
satisfied. Moreover, this action
was not commenced until nearly n
year after the judgment against
Van Every was obtained, and
nearly two years and eight months
after the transfer of the
defendants stock to him. The
learned Appellate Division held
that under these circumstances it
was too late for the plaintiff to
attempt to retreat from the posi-
ton it occupied, rescind its action
aud hold the defendant liable as a
stakeholder. AS this ia not an
action by the creditors of the cor
poration, but ia between the cor
porstion and a former stakeholder
the transfer OF whose stock they
have thus confirmed, we are dis
posed to sustain the decision of
the court in that respect and upon
that ground affirm its judgment"
Judgment affirmed. All concur.
James G. Greene for appellant;
W. A. Sutherland for respondent.
Rochester and Kettle Falls Co.