rain- v. srrnsmau. 19
purchase of property b y an insolvent person with a preconceived intent
of not paying for it. In bothlcases the depositor and the vendor may
reclaim that with which they have parted, if it can be identified in the
one case, and has not passed to an innocent purchaser for valuein the
other. ,
As this is an action of replevin, the judgment will be that the plaintid
1S entitled to the possession of the money deposited, and the damages »
for the detention will be assessed at one cent.
( Tarrr v. APPLEMAN.
. . A (Circuit Court, S. D. Ohio, E'. D. May 9, 1888.)
1. CORPORATION?-STOCK—TRANBFBR—PROOF 01¤· Accnrrjmcm.
As between the administrator of the original stockholder and his alleged as-
signee, who denies having bought the stock or authorized the transfer, the
record of the transfer upon the ooks of the company, is not suilicient proof
of acceptance by the assignee to render him liable to the estate for calls and
assessments paid by it subsequent to the assignment; and this is especially so
where such transfer was made under a power of attorney given by the original
_ stockholder, and executed at his instance without the knowledge or consent
of thepretended assignee. l
2. S.um—Dooumm<uaY EVIDENCE-···BOOKS or- Convonurrou.
Inan action bythe administrator of an original stockholder against his al-
leged assignee to recover the amount of assessments paid after the trau fer,
plaintiff, to prove the assignment and its acceptance. offered the blotter of
the c0uipa¤y's treasurer, and the stubs of its check·book, both of which con-
tainedentries to the eifect that defendant had paid calls on the shares. Hefd,
, that the evidence was inadmissible; the defendant being a stranger to the
corporation; ’ V
8. SAMn—S¤1moeA•rroN or- Assieuoa T0 CLAIM ron Assmssumivrs.
An original stockholder, who has been compelled to pay calls on stock after
he has assigned it, is entitled to be subrogated to the rights of the corporation
against the delinquent assignee only upon clear proof of acceptance of the
transfer by the assignee.! — r
At Law. Action by Andrew C. Tripp, as administrator of Charles M.
Daugherty, deceased, to recover the amount of calls and assessments
paid by the estate upon certain shares of stock alleged to have been as- `
signed by said Daugherty during his lifetime to Alpheus R. Appleman,
the defendant. There was a trial to a jury, and verdict for plaintili`.
Defendant thereupon moved for a new trial.
Derlam do Leyman, for plaintiii`.
J. T, Holmes, for defendant. .
Saou, J. The plaintiff alleges in his petition that on the 8th of Feb-
mary, 1866, Cha1·les,M. Daugherty, for a valuable consideration, sold
ikespectmitlidtrin isb t' ditsa litio D d .Blk
éArk.) 6 S.   Bgp. gg'}', atidtiiotg; Aggelslnoflliller (1?a.lml3 A1tL”1§ep.0g&l4$vA7ppe:l gl
aker, Id. 487* Bank v. Ackerman, (Tex.) 8 S. W.   45* Mehr v. Cole, (Ark.) 7 B.
W. Rep. 4s51· Bank v. Manufactumng’Co. (N. O.) 5 . E. `Rep. 81; Bunn v. Lindsay
gate.) 7,S.   Rep. 473;. Platt v. Railroad Co., (N. Y.) 15,N. E.   393; Appealof oil
o.,"(Pa.) 12 Atl. Rep. 4431 Livingston v. Anderson, (Ga.)“5 S. . Rep. 48* Appeal oi'
Robeson, (Pa.) 13 Atl. Rep.*51;·Knoblauch v. Foglesong, ( inn.) 88 N. W. hep. 366.i .