40 noun` suonrnn.
tice to complainants, who were non-residents, or any appearance by
them, obtained an execution against them; and that by virtue of
said execution the sheriff of said city thereupon levied upon and sold
certain shares of stock in the St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad
Company, as complainants’ property. In one of the cases it is stated
that all of the stock levied on and sold had been sold by complain-
` ants, and the certificates of stock transferred tothe purchasers before
said motion for execution was made. In the other case it is stated
that part of stock levied on had been previously sold, etc., by com-
plainants, and that the balance still belongs to them. In both cases
it is alleged that the purchasers of the stock sold at said sheriif’s sale
purchased that part of the stock which had been previously sold by
complainants, with notice of the fact that it had been so sold; that it
is provided by a by-law of said St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad
Company that no transfer of stock shall be allowed except by the
stockholders in person or by a properly constituted attorney; and
that, at the time of the transfer, the old certificates shall be surren-
dered and canceled before new are issued; that the stock sold by
complainants as aforesaid has never been transferred on the books
of the St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company, but still remains
in the name of complainants; but that the purchasers at said sher-
iif’s sale are now seeking to have the stock they purchased transferred
to them on the company’s books. Wherefore, the complainants pray
that the St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company may be en-
joined from transferring said stock on its books to the purchasers at
said sale, and that the execution under which the sale was made be
declared void.
Bmadhcad at Haeussler, for complainants.
Botsford ct Williams, for defendant.
Tamar, J., (orally.) This is a demurrer to the bill. Some very
important questions are involved in these cases, but they cannot be
heard on demurrer at present. Both bills charge that judgment was
improperly obtained, which, if it should so turn out to be the fact,
plaintiffs will have the right to be heard in equity here. In the one
case these parties plaintiif say they a1·e the owners of a portion of
· the stock thus interfered with; in the other, that they are still on the
stock books as the owners, though they have parted with the equi-
table title, and that they seek, by this bill, to protect the unknown
holders of these certificates. This court has not been inclined to pass
upon that question. The bill sets out an equity, which, if maintained
by proper proof, will give the parties plaintiff a right to be heard to
prevent any further action under these irregular executions. The en·
try, therefore, will be that the demurrer be overruled.