Azevedo v. Sequeira

THOMPSON, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment quieting title in some of the defendants to nine shares of the capital stock of Gustine Creamery, Inc., a corporation.

The court found that the plaintiffs A. J. and M. J. Azevedo, the defendants Sequeira, Pereira, Avila and one Silveira organized in 1914 and subsequently operated a co-partnership under the firm name of A. J. Azevedo and Company, as a dairy business; that they purchased independently of the copartnership seven shares of the capital stock of the Gustine Creamery, Inc., a corporation, which shares were personally owned by said individuals as follows: A. J. Azevedo, two shares, and the other five partners last mentioned one share each. It was further ■ found that these shares of stock were subsequently augmented by the earnings from stock dividends until each of said original seven shares were multiplied by three and aggregated twenty-one

[441]

shares in all. The plaintiffs thereby became the owners of six shares and the other last-mentioned partners, to wit, Sequeira, Pereira, Avila and Silveira, became the owners of three shares each. The court found that the partnership was subsequently dissolved, leaving each of the individuals possessed of the Gustine Creamery shares of stock as above related; that all of said stock was purchased and issued in the name of A. J. Azevedo and Company, and subsequently wrongfully transferred to the individual plaintiffs who hold the respective shares in trust for the real owners thereof as specified. Judgment was accordingly rendered quieting title to three shares of said stock in each of the following named defendants, to wit, Sequeira, Avila and Pereira. The judgment fails to quiet title to any of said stock in plaintiffs. From this judgment the plaintiffs have appealed.

It appears that the defendant Antonio T. Avila was sued as Antonio Homen, and Manuel Souza Pereira was sued as Manual Pereira Souza. Substitution was made in the proper names of said defendants.

The appellants contend the findings and judgment are not supported by the evidence. The theory of the appellants is that the original seven shares of stock were purchased with the funds of the dairy partnership and that they were subsequently sold at the time of the dissolution of the partnership and afterwards repurchased by the plaintiffs. The judgment is not challenged on the ground that the court failed to quiet title in plaintiffs to their six shares of stock. The findings will support such a decree and it may properly have been so drawn. That, however, is immaterial to the determination of this appeal.