Merchants' National Bank v. Thompson

133 Mass. 482, 1882 Mass. LEXIS 265
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedOctober 20, 1882
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 133 Mass. 482 (Merchants' National Bank v. Thompson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Merchants' National Bank v. Thompson, 133 Mass. 482, 1882 Mass. LEXIS 265 (Mass. 1882).

Opinion

W. Allen, J.

The defendant Thompson was one of several individuals associated to purchase from the Boston Water Power Company, a corporation, certain lands in Boston called the Huntington Avenue Lands. The lands were conveyed to trustees, upon trusts declared in a declaration of trust, referred to in the deed of conveyance. The interests of the purchasers were divided into shares, and there was issued to each, purchaser a certificate of the number of shares belonging to him. The certificates contained the folloxving provision, “ and said share is transferable by assignment in writing on this certificate, recorded on the books of said trustees, and not otherwise, except when the share is pledged; in which case the interest of the general owner therein may be assigned in writing, approved by the trustees, and recorded in the books.” By the declaration1 of trust, the trustees had full authority to protect, manage and dispose of- the property on the most advantageous terms. The intention of the purchasers was to sell the property from time to time, in small parcels, after it was improved and prepared for such sales. At the time of the conveyance, the lands consisted of flats, unfilled and mostly covered with water, and a part of the consideration of the purchase was the agreement of the Boston Water Power Company to fill and otherwise improve the property, within seven months. The price to be paid, which included the consideration for this agreement of the Water Power Company, was $1 a foot. The arrangement was that the conveyance should be made to the trustees, and certificates issued to each of the associates named in the declaration of trust for his shares, and that [484]*484he should pay his proportion of the whole purchase money to the Boston Water Power Company, ten per cent of it in cash, and the remainder in his bond secured by a pledge of his certificates. The defendant Thompson received the certificate of five shares mentioned in the bill, and gave his bond to the Boston Water Power Company for $23,000, dated December 9, 1871, payable, one half on December 9, 1873, and one half on December 9,1874, with interest, at the rate of seven per cent per annum, payable July 1, 1872, and semiannually thereafter, and assigned his certificate as collateral security therefor. The plaintiff has acquired the right and interest of the Boston Water Power Company in the bond and certificate. One of the shares has been transferred by the defendant Thompson to the other defendant, but subject to the plaintiff’s rights. The bond is unpaid except $1000 of the principal, and $275 of the interest.

The plaintiff now brings this bill in equity, and the question presented is, whether the plaintiff has a right to a decree for a foreclosure, either by an absolute transfer to it, or by a sale, of the interest of the defendants in the certificates. If it has the right of foreclosure, it is entitled to relief in equity, not only from that fact, but because the shares now stand in the names of the defendants on the books of the trustees, and can be transferred only by them, and such transfer, or some instrument of conveyance executed by the defendants, is necessary to give a clear title to them.

The declaration of trust provides that “the net proceeds of sales shall be divided among the parties who may be the general owners of the shares .... at the time of declaring dividends, or as such owners may order in any assignment of their shares as collateral, semiannually or oftener; ” and that “ the trustees shall issue to each purchaser, or his assigns, one or more certificates expressing his interest under this trust,” which “ shall be transferable only by assignment recorded upon books to be kept by the trustees. In case of any pledge or transfer of such shares as collateral security, the transfer shall express upon the face of the certificate the amount of the debt intended to be secured, and the name of the debtor; and the pledgor or his assigns, unless expressly provided in the instrument creating the pledge, shall alone be entitled to vote or to receive dividends, or be [485]*485notified as herein provided, and in general shall alone be entitled to the rights of an owner. And, in general, the party appearing apon the books of the trustees to be the owner shall alone be deemed entitled to notice, or to any of the rights of an owner.’’ It is further provided, that “ any shareholder or his assigns may at any time sell his shares, or any of them, but subject in all respects to the terms of this trust; and the assignee in all transfers must be approved by the trustees,” with the further provision that the owner may sell to an assignee not approved by the trustees if they do not within twenty days offer tó take the stock for the common benefit at the price offered. The instrument of the assignment of the certificate to the Boston Water Power Company authorized the company and their assigns to receive the dividends.

We see nothing in the facts of this case to prevent the application of the general rule, that the pledgee of personal property has authority to sell the property after default in the payment of the debt secured. Whatever rights the plaintiff has, it holds under the assignment of the certificate, and the transfer of the certificate will give whatever rights it is entitled to, whether the right represented in the certificate is a chose in action or an equitable interest in land.

The pledge of property to secure the payment of a debt implies authority to change the property into money to apply on the debt, if the pledgor fails in his duty to pay it; the usual and ordinary mode of changing property into money is by selling it, and a pledge ordinarily includes a power of sale upon default. Story on Bailments, § 308. Parker v. Brancker, 22 Pick. 40, 46. The exceptions to the rule illustrate it. A pledge of commercial paper does not include authority to sell it, at least before it is due and default made in its payment, because the proper and usual mode of converting it into money is to receive the money when it becomes due upon it. Wheeler v. Newbould, 16 N. Y. 392. Fletcher v. Dickinson, 7 Allen, 23. So a savings-bank book cannot be sold by a pledgee. Boynton v. Payrow, 67 Maine, 587. In Hew Jersey, an ordinary note and mortgage pledged cannot be sold; Morris Canal Banking Co. v. Fisher, 1 Stock. 667; but coupon bonds may be. Morris Canal & Banking Co. v. Lewis, 1 Beas. 323. The question [486]*486is one of contract; where there is no express agreement, the intention of the parties, as to the mode by which the security shall be converted into money, must be implied from the nature of the property pledged, and the circumstances of the transaction.

The defendants contend that the intention of the parties to the pledge was, that the pledgee should rely,' as the means of meeting any default in payment of the bonds secured, upon the dividends to be made from the proceeds of land to be sold, and not upon a sale of the certificates; and rely, in support of this, upon the fact that, by the agreement of the Boston Water Power Company, the pledgee, the filling and improvement of the lands were to be completed by it, within a period which would expire before the bonds would become due, upon the expectation of all parties that the land would be speedily sold after the completion of the improvements, and upon various provisions of the certificate and the declaration of trust, which have been referred to.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Stevens v. Wiley
43 N.E. 177 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1896)
Porter v. Frazer
6 Misc. 553 (New York Supreme Court, 1894)
Union Cattle Co. v. International Trust Co.
21 N.E. 962 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1889)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
133 Mass. 482, 1882 Mass. LEXIS 265, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/merchants-national-bank-v-thompson-mass-1882.