Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Adams v. Silver Shield Min. & Mill. Co.

Utah Supreme Court

Decided May 10, 1933No. 4946Published

1ConcurrenceFolland, J.

I concur. It is probably unnecessary, for the purpose of this case, to make a more definite statement than is made in the opinion with respect to negotiability of stock certificates. I call attention, however, to the fact that one of the purposes of the Uniform Stock Transfer Act (Laws 1927, c. 55) was to give full negotiability to certificates of stock, as indicated by the Commissioner’s note to section 5 of the Act, 6 Uniform Laws Annotated, p. 10, as follows: .

“This section gives full negotiability to certificates of stock. In so doing it goes beyond the existing law but is in accordance…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Peckinpaugh v. H. W. Noble & Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1927
  2. Edmund Wright-Ginsberg v. Carlisle Rib. MillsNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1929
  3. United States Gypsum Co. v. HoustonMichigan Supreme Court · 1927

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API