Hurley

202 F.2d 257 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO., Limited v. HURLEY. No. 13143. United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. Jan. 6, 1953. Rehearing Denied Feb. 25, 1953. Fulcher & Wynn, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant. Thurman L. McCormick, Kansas City, Mo., Harold Easton, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee. Before STEPHENS, HEALY and POPE, Circuit Judges. POPE, Circuit Judge. 1 This is the same action with which we had to deal in Hurley v. Southern California Edison Co., 9 Cir., 183 F.2d 125 . After our decision in that case the action was again tried and a judgment was entered in favor of Hurley, plaintiff in the action, and Southern California Edison Company has appealed. 2 The action was brought by Hurley to require it to account for dividends on its stock and certain stock rights which the Company is asserted to have paid out and delivered to the wrong person. The action concerns dividends and stock rights relating to two separate groups of shares in the defendant company. 3 As detailed more at length in our former opinion, in the month of November, 1928, when Hurley was a minor of the age of 19 years, 1 William Price, the husband of Elizabeth J. Price, who was Hurley's…

This is the same action with which we had to deal in Hurley v. Southern California Edison Co., 9 Cir., 183 F.2d 125 . After our decision in that case the action was again tried and a judgment was entered in favor of Hurley, plaintiff in the action, and Southern California Edison Company has appealed.

The action was brought by Hurley to require it to account for dividends on its stock and certain stock rights which the Company is asserted to have paid out and delivered to the wrong person. The action concerns dividends and stock rights relating to two separate groups of shares in the defendant company.

As detailed more at length in our former opinion, in the month of November, 1928, when Hurley was a minor of the age of 19 years, 1 William Price, the husband of Elizabeth J. Price, who was Hurley’s grandmother, caused the company to issue in the names of Elizabeth J. Price, George E. Burton, (who was Hurley’s uncle), and Hurley, as joint tenants with full right of survivorship, certificates evidencing ownership of 575 shares of the common stock of the company. A few days later, at the request of Mrs. Price and her husband, the company issued certificates also in the names of…

On Petition for Rehearing.

Appellant makes a number of contentions in its petition for rehearing. We make allusion to but two of them.

With respect to the unauthorized alterations of the assignments of the stock certificates, it is asserted that an alteration has no effect upon the rights of the parties to an instrument when made by one not a party thereto. The argument is that since the bank made the changes this was like an alteration by a mere interloper having no connection with any of the parties. The record shows that the bank was not handling the stock certificates and the assignments as a volunteer. Mrs. Price, with Burton, asserting that the transfer to Hurley Had been by mistake, obtained through Mr. Greenhouse the forms for transfer of the stock. She and Burton took the certificates to the bank and requested the bank to handle the certificates and transfer them with the assignments to the appellant. That the bank, while transacting this business for Price and Burton, undertook to cut corners, did not make it any the less their agent. Otis Elevator Co. v. First Nat. Bank, 163 Cal. 31 , 124 P. 704 , 41 L.R.A.,N.S., 529; Rutherford v. Rideout Bank, 11 Cal.2d 479 , 80…