Houghton v. Hubbell, 255.

• Decision Date: 19 January 1899
• Docket Number: 255.
• Citation: 91 F. 453
• Parties: HOUGHTON v. HUBBELL.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit

91 F. 453

HOUGHTON v. HUBBELL.

No. 255.

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

January 19, 1899

In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts.

NATIONAL BANKS-- SUITS BY RECEIVER AGAINST SHAREHOLDER-- LIABILITY OF REAL OWNER OF STOCK.

The real owner of shares of stock in a national bank, which, by his procurement or permission, stand on the books of the bank in the name of an agent, and have never been in his own name may be charged as a shareholder for an assessment made on the bank's insolvency, and the receiver may bring an action at law for the collection of such assessment directly against him, without regard to the liability of the agent. ^[1] William F. Dana (Benjamin E. Bates, on the brief), for plaintiff in error.

Robert M. Morse (William M. Richardson and Charles S. Hamlin, on the brief), for defendant in error.

Before COLT, Circuit Judge, and WEBB and ALDRICH, District Judges.

ALDRICH District Judge.

This is an action at law by the receiver of the Ellensburg National Bank of the State of Washington to recover an assessment of $100 a share on 80 shares of the stock of that bank. At a jury-waived trial below, the plaintiff offered parol evidence tending to show that the defendant was the actual owner of the 80 shares of stock that stood on the books of the bank in the names of Edmund Seymore and William W. Seymore, and that the Seymores were the agents of the defendant. Such evidence was objected to on the ground that it contradicted and varied the records, was received against objection, and the defendant duly excepted. There was a general finding for the plaintiff for $8,046.47, and judgment thereon. 86 F. 547.

In this case we have no occasion to deal with the question whether the assessment could have been sustained against the agents who purchased the stock for Mr. Houghton, and appear on the records of the bank as owners. The fact that the record holders may be held does not, necessarily, mean that the actual holders may not be held. The general finding established the fact that the defendant below was the real owner of the stock at the time the bank suspended, and when the assessment was made by the comptroller. While there is perhaps, no express supreme court authority to that effect in a case exactly in point, the various expressions in the following authorities indicate clearly enough the understanding of the supreme court that the real owner may properly be assessed and held: Anderson v. Warehouse Co., 111 U.S. 479, 483, 4 Sup.Ct. 525; Pauly v Trust Co., 165 U.S. 606, 619, 623, 17 Sup.Ct. 465; Welles v. Larrabee, 36 F. 866, 868; Davis v Stevens, 17 Blatchf. 259, 7 Fed.Cas. 177 (No. 3,653). The last case cited was decided by the late Chief Justice Waite, sitting in the Southern district of New York. The question was like the one under consideration, except that there the actual owner had fictitiously transferred his stock on the books of the bank to another, the difference therefor being that the actual owner in that case transferred his stock to an agent, or a fictitious person, rather than allow it to remain in the name of an agent, as was done by the owner in this case. It is difficult to perceive, however, that such a situation involves a different principle from that of the question before us. Indeed, the learned justice said, at page 260, 17 Blatchf., and page 177, 7 Fed.Cas.: 'The point to be decided...