Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 2.djvu/470

 WILSON V. ATLANTIC A ST. LAWRENCE B. CO. 463 �0U8 other cases, are referred to, in which the transfer of a cer- tificate of stock had been forged or frauduiently altered, and, thereupon, surrendered to the coj'poration, and new certifi- cates issued. In these cases the original owners, by suits in equity, compelled the corporations to issue to them new cer- tiiicates in place of those the transfer of which had been forged or altered. It is said these cases are not analogous to the present. ïhe only difference is, in those the original cer- tificates had been surrendered up to tha corporations, and, therefore^ could never bave been used against them; but a like resuit would have foUowed in the present instance. If the Company had issued a certificate to the complainaut when demanded, Knight would no longer have appeared on the books of the company as owner of the share. The title would bave passed from him by the proceedings in bankruptey, and if the original certificate had subsequently been produçed, with a transfer by Knight, the company would have been under no obligation to recognize it. The false and fraudu- lent notice from Mrs. Knight that the share had been trans- ferred to her in August, 1874, did not justify the company in denying the rights of the complainaut, as it was, in fact, false, and was unsupported by any evidence, not even by the pro-- duction of the certificate ; and by the satisf actory indemnity tendered by the complainant to the defendant company it would have been fully protected, not only against the claim of Mrs. KJnight, but of ail other parties, who could have had their remedy against the assignee if their equity was superior. The case demonstrates that the assignee was the only party who had any right or interest in the share. Proper evidence of this was tendered to the defendant, and it became the duty of the company to acknowledge the claim of the assignee in bankruptey. It should bave issued to him a new certificate and accounted with him for the dividends. Tele- graph v. Davenport, 7 Otto, 372. The refusai so to do is without justification, and there must therefore be a decree in bis bebalf, with costs. ����