A rehearing from the district court of appeal was ordered in this cause for the purpose of correcting the form of the judgment of reversal so as to eliminate the direction to enter judgment in favor of the defendants Harris and Ferris. With the exception of the judgment we adopt the opinion of the district court of appeal as the opinion of this court, with the additions hereinafter stated. That opinion is as follows:

For the information of the lower court and the parties on questions that may arise upon a new trial, we think it necessary to add some further observations. Thé findings of the court, including the stipulation between the parties as to the facts, indicate the probability that Imperial Water Company No. 1 had provided in its by-laws that the water it 'was distributing should only be “sold, distributed, supplied, or delivered to owners of its capital stock and that such stock shall be appurtenant to” the lands described in the certificate issued therefor, and that a certified copy of such bylaws had been recorded in the office of the county recorder in the county where the lands are now, or were then, situated, as,provided in section 324 of the Civil Code as amended in 1895. (Stats. 1895, p. 118.) If these be the facts, then under that section the shares of stock can be- transferred only with the lands and can pass as an appurtenance thereto, and not otherwise. [4] The result would be that a purchaser of the stock, without the land, would obtain by such purchase no title to the stock and no right to receive the water which the stock represents. Possibly the same results would follow from the by-laws and certificates, even if the copy of by-laws was not recorded. (Riverside Land Co. v. Jarvis, 174 Cal. 328 , [ 163 Pac. 54 ]; Estate of Thomas, 147 Cal. 243 , [ 81 Pac. 539 ]; Thayer v. California D. Co., 164 Cal. 136 , [ 128 Pac. 21 ].) But as to this we express no opinion. Under these circumstances, we think the proper course to pursue is to reverse the judgment without directions to enter judgment for defendants so that the complaint may be amended, if necessary, to show the true character of said stock and the existing facts regarding the by-laws of the corporation as above indicated.

It may be further noted that counsel for the plaintiffs appear to have misunderstood the opinion of this court in National Bank of the Pacific v. Western Pacific etc. Co., 157 Cal. 573 , [21 Ann. Cas. 1391, 27 L. R. A. (N. S.) 987, 108 Pac. 676 ], Briefs recently filed in this court indicate that other attorneys also misunderstood it. That case was dealing only with the lien of an attachment levied upon thp stock and with the rights of the parties in the stock prior to any sale thereof under the attachment. It holds that the assignee of corporate stock who fails to obtain a transfer of his assignment on the books of the corporation holds title paramount to the lien of an attachment subsequently levied thereon in an action against his assignor. [5] But it does not hold, and it is not the law, that such assignee holds title paramount to one who, in good faith, without notice, purchases the stock on an attachment or execution sale, prior to the transfer of the assignment on the books of the company. Such purchaser, if he buys without notice of an unregistered transfer to another, takes title superior to that of such transferee, provided he pays value for the stock.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

Olney, J., Wilbur, J., Angellotti, C. J., Lawlor, J., and Lennon, J., concurred.