Summary
In Pollock v. National Bank (7 N.Y. 274, supra) plaintiff held the certificates which defendant cancelled, and instead of issuing new ones, it denied plaintiff's rights altogether; the court said, in effect, that, if defendant set up title as a bar to plaintiff's claim that is a matter which defendant must prove affirmatively (see, also, Telegraph v. Davenport, 97 U.S. 369, supra).
Summary of this case from Philipp v. Otis Elevator Co.Opinion
October Term, 1852
C. O'Conor for appellants.
E. Sandford for respondents.
The Misses Pollock were the acknowledged owners of fifty shares of stock of the National Bank, standing in their names on the books of that institution, with the certificates, the evidence of their title in their possession. This stock was subsequently transferred from their names to the names of other persons by the permission of the bank, which received and canceled the original certificates and has ever since refused to pay dividends to the complainants, or in any way to recognize them as stockholders in the institution, and denied their title to or any interest in the capital stock of the bank. All this has been done without any authority or assent, express or implied upon the part of the true owners, and the question is are they entitled to any relief? It is said that inasmuch as the transfer was made by virtue of a forged power of attorney the stock is still the property of the complainants. But a title to stock in the abstract without any legal evidence of such title, without the power of sale or of obtaining dividends is not the ownership which the complainants once possessed and of which they have been deprived by the agents of the bank. They held certificates; these the bank have canceled, and instead of issuing new ones to the complainants it denies their right altogether. It was said that there was no proof that the power of attorney was forged. But the answer is that the original title of the Misses Pollock in admitted, and if the bank sets up a title derived from them in bar of their claim, it must be proved. The affirmative of the issue is with the respondent.
The technical objection as to the form of the remedy is not well founded. This is not a cross bill in any sense. The complainants seek affirmative relief which the bank refuses upon the ground that the complainants have no claim to any stock but have duly parted with all their title. I think the bank is bound to issue new certificates and account for the dividends, or if upon inquiry it should be ascertained that it has no stock which it can transfer to the names of the complainants, then it should pay to them the value of the shares owned by them according to the prayer of the bill. The decree of the supreme court should be reversed and a decree made in accordance with the prayer of the complainants' bill.
RUGGLES, Ch. J., and JEWETT, JOHNSON and WATSON, Justices, concurred.
GRIDLEY and EDMONDS, Justices, were absent.
There is no aspect in which the appellants, in the present state of the pleadings and proofs, are entitled to any relief against the respondents.
The prayer of the bill is that the appellants be decreed entitled to fifty shares of the capital stock of the National Bank, and that the fifty shares of stock standing on the books of the bank in their names at the time of the filing of the bill may be decreed to belong to them; or in case the Bank of America should be decreed to be entitled to said fifty shares, that then the said National Bank be decreed to deliver to each of the complainants twenty-five shares of their capital stock, or to pay them the value thereof.
There has been a decree in the suit brought by the Bank of America against these appellants and others, which adjudges the plaintiffs in that suit entitled to the last mentioned fifty shares of stock, together with the dividends which had accrued thereon after the same had been transferred to the appellants, and requiring the said appellants to assign and transfer the same to the plaintiff therein, the Bank of America.
On what ground then can the appellants ask to have the National Bank either furnish them with an equal number of shares of stock or pay them the value thereof? They were the owners of fifty shares of stock in that bank, which they allege was sold and transferred in their names, by their brother Andrew Pollock, upon a forged power of attorney. Admitting this was the case, they are still the owners of those fifty shares, and are entitled to receive the dividends payable thereon unless they have in some way ratified the sale, which they deny. They could not be deprived of them without their consent or by due process of law. If the National Bank has refused or shall refuse to pay over to the appellants any dividends that may have accrued upon it, I see no difficulty in their sustaining an action at law as for money had and received by the bank to their use. If it is important for the appellants to have the stock stand in their names upon the books of the bank, and it becomes necessary to invoke the equitable power of the court to effect that object, either by having the transfers or assignments fraudulently made of the same in their names by Andrew Pollock declared void, or by compelling a reassignment thereof to them by their claiming to hold the stock, and have the same registered by the bank in their name, or in any other way to be reinstated the apparent as well as the real owners of such stock, the persons to whom the same was assigned or who claim title thereto through such fraudulent assignments or transfers are, of all others, most interested, and have the best right to be heard before the court can make any order or give any judgment in the premises. Without having those persons before them as parties, it would be manifestly improper to give any judgment in the premises, which would afford the appellants any relief. Indeed it could not be done without at the same time seriously affecting the purchasers of the stock in question.
It does not appear that the respondents have done any act of which the appellants have a right to complain. The wrong, if any, which has been done was committed by Andrew Pollock in transferring the stock without authority; and in this the purchasers from him, as the appellants' agent or attorney, must of course be the greatest sufferers; for they have bought without acquiring title to that which they purchased, and have consequently lost whatever they paid for it. But the bank, I repeat, has done nothing worthy of blame. It could have no legal interest in the question as to who were the owners of the stock in question. Upon a transfer of any of its stock, it was its duty to register it in the name of the transferee; and it would be a monstrous doctrine to hold it responsible in any event for the genuineness or validity of such transfer, where good faith has been observed by its managing officers.
The bill is not adapted to the relief which the appellants are entitled to, if any, either in its frame, prayer or parties defendants; and there is, as it seems to me, an entire absence of equity as against the respondents.
For these reasons, as well as those assigned by the supreme court, the judgment should be affirmed.
Decree reversing the decree of the supreme court and granting the prayer of the bill.