104 Ky. 90 | Ky. Ct. App. | 1898
delivered the opinion of the court.
It appears that tbe firm of Pidcock & Rodgers (the members of which being J. N. Pidcock, Sr., John F. Pidcock, John N. Pidcock, Jr., and John K. Rodgers) were indebted to the appellee bank in the sum of $3,598.33, to recover which this action was brought against the Pidcoeks and Rodgers. Rodgers was brought before the court by having a summons served upon him. The Pidcocks were sued as non-residents, and were before the •court by constructive service. The appellant, the New Jersey Sheep & Wool Company, and R. H. Kyle were made defendants; and the summons and order of attachment were served on Kyle individually, and as agent of the appellant. The averment in the petition as to the indebtedness of the appellant and Kyle to their co-
We do not think the facts authorized this court to hold that the answer which Kyle filed for the appellant would amount to a conversion of the stock of J. N. Pidcock, Jr. It is true that an action will lie for the conversion of shares of stock. The proof in this case shows, that the secretary and treasurer of the appellant, after the answer was filed, regarded J. N. Pidcock, Jr., as a stockholder. He, in so far as the record shows still holds his certificate of stock. Neither does it appear that the company, outside of this action, has questioned Pidcock’s right to the stock, nor has it done so in this action on any issue raised between the appellant and Pidcock; for, as a matter of fact and law, there is no issue in the action between them. It is evident that the reason which influenced the bank to try to make the appellant liable for the alleged conversion was because it had failed to show that the $2,300 in bank belonged to the Pidcocks, and, further, because the stock which J. N. Pidcock, Jr., held in the appellant company, could not in this jurisdiction be subjected to the payment of the plaintiff’s debt. If the $2,300 had actually belonged to the Pidcocks, then the court would have so adjudged, and appropriated it to the payment of the bank debt; but, as the money in the bank belonged to the appellant, the court would not get jurisdiction to adjudge the rights of the parties simply because the bank claimed the amount deposited belonged to the Pidcocks.
The conclusions we have reached obviate the necessity of considering the question as to the jurisdiction of the court, and the rights of the appellee had it appeared that