Hobbs v. Western Nat. Bank

The stock is the personal property of the shareholder (so de--dared by the act of congress), having all the ordinary incidents of such, liable to transfer by sale, and all other means ordinarily applicable to such property. On the owner’s death it passes to his legal representatives, and is disposed of under the laws of the state, in the usual course of administration, as any other personalty of which he may die possessed. The purpose of the acts of assembly of 1836 and 1872 was, and their effect is, to invest executors and administrators, under letters granted by other states of the *267Union, -with the same authority over “shares of stock of any incorporated company, of,” or “within this commonwealth, standing in the name of the decedent,” as that conferred by letters granted here. The language was certainly intended to embrace all stock, of every description, which may pass to the legal representatives; and was designed to avoid the necessity for administration here. It is sufficiently comprehensive, we think, to include the stock of a national bank, which, though not incorporated by the laws of the state, is, nevertheless, a corporation “within the commonwealth,” as contemplated by the act of 1836, or “of the commonwealth,” as contemplated by that of 1872. The location of the bank is here — so fixed by the act of congress, and declared by the certificate issued under it It can transact business nowhere else; and may, accurately, be described as a corporation within or of this commonwealth. Besides, if the language were less distinct, the act, being remedial in its nature, should receive a liberal interpretation, so as to embrace, if possible, the full extent of the mischief, or difficulty, contemplated. There is certainly as much reason for applying such a provision to one kind of stock, passing to the legal representatives of the deceased owner, as to another.

The plaintiff must be regarded, therefore, precisely as if the executor of Mrs. Kitt-redge’s will had administered here. That the bank could safely recognize the transfer, under such circumstances, and therefore should do so, cannot well be doubted. It is not subject to the control of the state. But as its stockholders may transfer their interests, or the same may be transferred, by any method provided by the laws of the state for the transfer of similar property (in the absence of other provision by congress), the defendant cannot thwart the purpose to do so. If the bank had prescribed a method of transfer, as contemplated by the act of congress, the question now presented would, probably, have been avoided. But having failed in this, the duty of recognizing a transfer in pursuance of the laws of the state (the only method available to the plaintiff) is, we think, reasonably clear. The failure to discharge this duty is sufficient to support the suit. Judgment must therefore be entered for the plaintiff.