Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 7.djvu/384

 g7S FEDBBAIi BEPOBTEB. �ohy V. Day, 2 E. & B. 605. This application of the rule obtains in Massachusetts, and in the United States gener- ally, though a few courts hold otherwise. Drake on Attaeh- ments, c. 24; Thayer v. Daniels, 113 Mass. 129, and cases cited. �The doctrine is so familiar that I will merely cite authori- ties io show that it is the general rule in Massachusetts as well as elsewhere. The exceptions to it in this state I will consider afterwards. See Wakefield v. Martin, 3 Mass. 558; Dix \. Cob, 4 Mass. 508; Kendall t. Lawrence, 22 Pick. 540; Kingman v. Perkins, 105 Mass. 111; Thayer v. Daniels, 113 Mass. 129; Boston Music Hall Ass'n v. Cary, 129 Mass. 435.' �3. The incorporeaLproperty of the shareholder in a«om- pany of this sort is represented by his certifieates ; and, if thesSi aie conveyed, the failure to record the conveyance is not evi- dence of such a constructive fraud as sometimes arises fjfom the possession of chattels after the property has been parted witb. . Gn the contrary, it was proved in eady easea to.b^^ the usage, and is now adopted by the courts as lawibased on such usage, that the possession of the certifieates, with a power to transfer them, is prima facie evidence of till&;' and if, in fact^ the possessor has given value, bis title cannothe impeacbed even by subsequent purehaaers who did not re-', ceivfi the certifieates, much less by creditors of the trans- ferrer. In late cases these certifieates are likened to bills of lading and other quasi negotiable securities. See Black y, Zacharie, 3 How. 483; Bank v. Lanier, 11 Wall. 369; John- son y. Laflin, (S. C. U. S.) 12 Cent. L. J. 440;.C7. S. v. Vaughan, 3 Binney, 394,approved in U.S. v. Cutts, 1 Sumn. 133; Finney's App. 59 Pa. St. 398; Wood's App. 10 Weekly Eep. 126; Smith v. Crescent City Co. 30 La. Ann, 1378; Bridgeport Bank v. Schuyler, 84 N. Y. 30; McNeil v. Tenth Nat. Bank, 46 N. Y. 325; Winter v. Belmont Mining Co. 53 Cal. 428; Fraser v. Charleston, 11 S. G. 486; Strong v. Houston R. Co. 10 Weekly Eep. 28; Broadway Bank v. McEl- wrath, 13 N. J. Eq. 24; S. C. 24 N. J. Eq. 496; Prall v. Tilt, 28 N. J. Eq. 483; Merchants' Bank v. Richards, 6 Mo. ��� �