Smith, C. J.,

(after stating the facts). We concur in the-opinion of the Court, that inasmuch as the lien was formed by the levy of the attachment, and the answer avers the assignment to have been made, not before that levy, but before the-rendition of judgment, it does not in terms put in issue the superior title by assignment, and the plaintiff’s paramount claim is consistent with the other, as subordinate. There was no reason therefore for delaying the cause by an effort to introduce into it a new party, whose very existence seems-to he in doubt, and who. if there be such, so far as the answer speaks, could not controvert the plaintiff’s demand with success. We are not prepared to admit, if the assignment supposed to have been made, was prior in time to the levy of the attachment, that it would be ground for arresting the-progress of the action until the assignee could be brought-in, for the proof of such fact shown by the defendant, would be a full answer to the plaintiff’s action, as much so as if the-new claimant had intervened and set up his own title, in an issue raised between the plaintiff and himself.

Certainly a person owning property in possession of another, cannot be stopped in pursuing and recovering it, because a party in whom the defendant alleges the property to he, is not introduced in the cause, inasmuch as the plaintiff must prove his own title, and proof of its being in some one else, would equally defeat his action. We have not therefore considered the point discussed in the brief, and which seems to be supported by the authorities referred to, that a. *366 legal transfer of stock can only be effectuated by a transfer upon the books of the corporation by a surrender of the former, and the issue of a new certificate to the assignee. Bank v. Watsonton, 105 N. S., 222; and other cases cited in the brief.

The necessity of regarding as stockholders all whose names are on the corporation registry, until the change is made in the manner mentioned, arises from the fact that in this manner only can they be known, which could not be, if a transferred certificate alone had such effect. Such an assignment entitles the holder to have the transfer made effectual, and then, and not before, he becomes a legal owner, and entitled to all the rights of a stockholder.

There is no error, and the judgment must be affirmed, with costs againt the defendant.

Since the foregoing opinion was prepared, application has been made to the Court by motion of defendant’s counsel, for an order remanding the cause to the Superior Court from which the appeal was taken, in order that a new party, claiming to be owner of 5820 shares of the stock purchased by the plaintiff, may be brought into the action and his title enquired into and concluded in the final judgment for the protection and security of the company. The motion is based on information received by the President of the defendant company, in a notice served on him by the claimant on February 12th, since the present session began, with a demand, that upon the surrender of the certificates which are enumerated, other certificates of the same amount be issued to him, the alleged assignee.

The notice and demand are not verified' nor so far as the affidavit discloses, is the time of the transfer given, other than by a statement founded on information and belief, that they were made prior to the lien of the attachment.

*367 Without adverting to the suggestive fact of such long delay-after the assignment, in giving notice to the company, and demanding the issue of new certificates, we decline granting the motion, for reasons sufficiently appearing in the opinion, and because no harm can come to the company by proceeding to determine the appeal. If the new claimant has a preferable right to the stock, it can still be asserted as before against the parties in the present action, which only determined the title as between the parties to it.

No error. Affirmed.