Harbridge v. Am. Nat. Bank of Racine

• Decision Date: 09 May 1922
• Parties: HARBRIDGE v. AMERICAN NAT. BANK OF RACINE ET AL.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

177 Wis. 206

187 N.W. 853

HARBRIDGE

v.AMERICAN NAT. BANK OF RACINE ET AL.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

May 9, 1922.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Racine County; E. B. Belden, Judge.

Proceeding by S. M. Harbridge against the American National Bank of Racine and another. From an order for the delivery to petitioner of certain stock of the American National Bank, W. S. Willhite, as trustee of the Mt. Carmel Trust & Savings Bank, appeals. Reversed and remanded, with directions.

One Thornburgh owned some stock in the American National Bank of Racine for which on June 19, 1917, certificates were issued to and since have been held by him. A judgment was obtained against him, and an attachment in aid of an execution was levied upon the stock without any manual seizure thereof by the sheriff, who afterwards sold the stock to the petitioner herein. Willhite, as trustee of the Mt. Carmel Trust & Savings Bank, claims title by virtue of a loan equal to the value of the stock made by the bank to Thornburgh some time after the attachment. At the time of the loan Thornburgh delivered to the bank the certificates of stock. Thornburgh had notice of the attachment, but the bank did not. The trial court held that the petitioner's rights acquired under the attachment were superior to the rights of the pledgee bank, and ordered the stock to be turned over to him From such order the trustee appealed.Thompson, Myers & Kearney, of Racine, for appellant.

Simmons, Walker & Wratten and Heck & Krenzke, all of Racine, for respondents.

VINJE, C. J. (after stating the facts as above).

[1] Assuming that attachment proceedings were regular, the question arises whether the purchaser at the sale holds title as against a bona fide pledgee of the stock. The answer to the question depends upon a construction of the uniform stock transfer act as incorporated into our statutes of 1913. Laws 1913, c. 458. No manual seizure of the stock was made by the sheriff; no injunction was issued restraining the owner from disposing of the stock; and it was not surrendered to the corporation, but at all times held by Thornburgh or the pledgee. If the provision in the latter part of section 2989, reading, “Provided, however, that no attachment or levy upon shares of stock for which a certificate is outstanding shall be valid until such certificate be actually seized by the officer making the attachment or levy, or be surrendered to the corporation which issued it, or its transfer by the holder be enjoined,” applies to the whole section and not to domestic railroad corporation stock only, as claimed by respondent, then the title is in the pledgee, because no injunction was issued restraining Thornburgh from pledging or selling it. This proviso is part of section 13 of the Uniform Stock Transfer Act (see Terry Uniform Transfer Laws, p. 345), and in that act applies to all stock embraced within the terms of the act, including such stock as is here in...