Penington v. Commonwealth Hotel Construction Corp.

The Chancellor:

There is no evidence which would warrant the conclusion that the claimants knew that Mc-Atamney had purloined the certificates evidencing the shares which they purchased from him.

The question therefore is whether an innocent purchaser for value whose title to the shares is derived from a thief can under the circumstances here shown, be recognized as the owner.

Before answering that question, it should be pointed out, that the Uniform Stock Transfer Act of New York *174(the purchases by the claimants were made in New York) has no application to the case. The solicitor for the…