Gerard v. Sanner Et Al‪.‬

Conversion ? Corporate Stock ? Trusts and Trustees ? Pledges ? Waiver ? Consideration ? Estoppel ? Appeal and Error ? Trial ? Granting Motion for Directed Verdict ? Rule on Review of Propriety of Granting Motions. Appeal and Error ? Propriety of Granting Motion for Directed Verdict ? Review ? Rule. 1. In passing upon a motion for a directed verdict in favor of defendant, the supreme court must concede as true all the evidence supporting the claim of plaintiff, giving him the benefit of all legitimate inferences flowing therefrom, i.e., the evidence must be regarded in the light most favorable to him. Conversion ? Corporate Stock ? Trusts and Trustees ? Pledges ? Waiver ? Case at Bar. 2. Under the above rule, held, in an action in conversion to recover the value of a block of corporate stock placed in plaintiffs name on the corporate books in the course of a reorganization of the corporation, against the executors of the estate of one of two equal owners of its entire capital stock, who sold the stock in question as part of the assets of the estate on the theory that plaintiff during the lifetime of the decedent having been the latters business agent, at the time the stock was issued to him was his trustee, or that the stock was held as a pledge to secure payment of moneys advanced by decedent in satisfaction of obligations of the company, but that at any rate he had waived his claim to the stock in writing, that the evidence did not warrant the granting of a directed verdict in favor of the defendants. Pledges ? When Pledge No Longer Effective. 3. Where an obligation for which a pledge was given no longer exists, the pledge arrangement is no longer effective, even though the agreement was that the pledge should remain in force though the - Page 72 obligation be discharged, the payment of the obligation in effect amounting to an accord and satisfaction. Waiver ? Essentials. 4. A "waiver" requires two parties ? one waiving a right, and the other receiving the benefit of it; it must be manifested in some unequivocal manner and must in all cases be intentional and so understood by the one receiving the benefit of it. Same ? Waiver must be Founded on Consideration. 5. A waiver, to be operative, must be supported by an agreement founded on a valuable consideration, or the act relied upon as a waiver must be such as to estop a party from insisting on performance. Same ? What may Constitute Consideration. 6. A monetary consideration is not necessary to support a waiver, but if the waiver confers some benefit upon the one waiving a right, or some additional burden is placed upon the other party, the consideration is sufficient. Waiver ? Instrument in Writing ? Presumption of Consideration ? Rebuttal. 7. The statutory presumption that a written instrument is presumptive evidence of consideration, as applied to the contention of defendants in the case above (par. 2) that the written waiver of plaintiffs claim to the block of stock in issue was evidence of consideration, held sufficiently rebutted by the testimony of plaintiff and one of the defendants that nothing was paid for the waiver. Estoppel ? Equitable Estoppel ? Essentials. 8. The doctrine of equitable estoppel rests largely on the facts and circumstances of the particular case; to sustain it all the necessary elements of estoppel at common law must exist, including the indispensable element of ignorance of the facts by the party who invokes the doctrine, and that he changed his position in reliance upon the act or conduct of the party sought to be estopped ? in the instant case the alleged waiver by plaintiff of any claim to the stock in question. (See par. 2, supra.)