Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 3).pdf/49

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page needs to be proofread.
DOTY v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LARIMORE.
9

Edmond S. Doty vs. First National Bank of Larimore.

Opinion filed Aug. sth, 1892.

National Banks—Transfer of Stock.

Section 5139, Rev. St. U. S., providing that the stock of a national bank shall be ‘transferable on the books of the association in such manner as may be “prescribed in the by-laws or articles of association,”” was enacted for the benefit of the corporation, its shareholders and creditors, only. As to all other parties a transfer of such stock, good at common law, is good under the statute.

Priority of Transferee over Attachment Creditor.

Under the federal statutes, the rights of a transferee of national bank stock, under an unrecorded transfer, good at common law, are superior to the rights of a subsequent attaching creditor of the transferrer without notice.

State Cannot Regulate Transfer of National Bank Stock.

It is not competent for state legislation to limit or interfere with the transferable quality of national bank stock, as the same is left by the statutes of the United States.

Appeal from District Court, Grand Forks County; Templeton, J.

Action by Edmund S. Doty against the First National Bank of Larimore, to recover damages for the refusal of defendant to transfer certain shares of stock on its books. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Bosard & Van Wormer, for appellants.

If plaintiff had a right to insist on the transfer, defendant is liable in damages for refusing to make the transfer. The damages are the value of the stock with interest. Boone on Corp. § 122; Note 13. Bond v. Mt. Hope Iron Co., 99 Mass. 505; Bank of America v. McNeil, 10 Bush. (Ky.) 54; Sargent v. Franklin Ins. Co., 8 Pick. 90; Kortright v. Buffalo Bank, 20 Wend. 91; S. C., 22 Wend. 348; Dayton Nat. Bank v. Merchants Nat. Bank, 37 Ohio St. 208; Case v. Bank, 100 U.S. 446; Freon v. Carriage Co., 42 Ohio St. 30; Kimball v. Union Water Co., 44 Cal. 173; Baltimore City Passenger Ry. Co. v. Sewell, 35 Md. 238; S. C., 6 Am. Rep. 402; Baker v. Marshall, 15 Minn. 177. Lawson’s Rights Rem. & Pr., § 466. It is