ANDEESON V. PHUADELPHU WABEHOUSE 00. 183 �When we looked at this case, our first thought was that wa must enter judgment for the plaintiff, ïor we were impressed with the belief that there was a transfer of the stock to the defendants, and that if was actuaily, or virtually, registered in the latter's name. But upon examining the evidence we were eonvinced that this was a mistake ; for, while it would seena from the record that it was submitted to the jury whether the transfer to Mr. Henry was with the consent of the defendants, and therefore a transfer to them, it really never was so submitted. The position taken by the parties on the trial was that the question was one of law. �The plaintiff asked the court to charge that as matter of law the plaintiff was entitled to recover ; while the defend- ants asked for a charge that upon ail the evidence they were entitled to recover. It is evident that there was a question of fact for the jury, viz., whether the defendants consented to become share-holders, and whether the transfer to their president was with the understanding that it should be a transfer to them, or was subsequently recognized by them as Buch a transfer. There was evidence on both sides of this question, and the motion for a new trial must, therefore, be granted. �McKennan, C. J., {oralhj.) There îs but one question in this case. We both agree that the mere holding of this stock by the warehouse company, as pledgee, would not render them liable to assessment under the act of congress unless there was an agreement that the transfer to the president should be a transfer to them, or unless they recognized such transfer as a transfer to them. Tho only question is whether the company is a registered share-holder. The name of Mr. Henry appears on the corporation books. Whether the ware- house company is a share-holder depends upon the anthority given to him by the company. There was evidence on both eides, and the question is one of fact for the jury. ����
