Summary
In Arnold v. Johnson, supra, which follows McNeil v. Tenth Nat. Bank,supra, and distinguishes the facts of the case before it from the case of Barstow v. Savage Mining Co., supra, on the ground that, unlike the latter case, the certificate was voluntarily delivered, the owner had delivered certificates indorsed in blank for a purpose other than a transfer of any property therein, to wit, for the purpose only of exchanging it for a new certificate.
Summary of this case from Powers v. Pacific Diesel Engine Co.Opinion
Department Two
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order refusing a new trial.
COUNSEL:
Upon the facts as found, the appellant was entitled to judgment. (Barstow v. Savage Mining Co ., 64 Cal. 388.)
George F. & Wm. H. Sharp, for Appellant.
Wallace & Hastings, for Respondent.
The defendant having endorsed and delivered the stock to Duncan, furnished him with the indicia of ownership, and as against one who acted upon such appearances, is estopped to deny that Duncan owned the stock at the time it was pledged by him. (McNeil v. First National Bank , 46 N.Y. 325; Winter v. Belmont Mining Co ., 53 Cal. 428; Thompson v. Toland , 48 Cal. 99; Brewster v. Sime , 42 Cal. 139; Maynard v. F. F. Ins. Co ., 34 Cal. 48.)
OPINION
THE COURT The difference between this case and Barstow v. Savage Mining Co ., 64 Cal. 388, is, that in this case the owner of the stock voluntarily delivered the indorsed certificate to the person who pledged it, while in that, the indorsed certificates were stolen from the owner of the stock. In this case the owner allowed another to assume the apparent ownership of the stock. In that, the owner did not allow another to assume the apparent ownership. The distinction is an important one, and brings this case within the rule stated in NcNeil v. Tenth National Bank , 46 N.Y. 325, cited approvingly in Barstow v. Savage Mining Co., supra (Vide Ambrose v. Evans , 66 Cal.)
Judgment and order affirmed.