It must be conceded that decisions as to the situs of shares not subject to the Uniform Stock Transfer Act have attributed to them a sort of fourth-dimensional quality-an ability to be physically present in two different states at the same time-so that actions quasi in rem may be brought in either state on the theory that the state where the action is brought has such complete control over the res that it may determine the rights of non-resident claimants served by publication. Numerous

more »

... s of the highest authority dealing with such shares have held that actions quasi in rem may be brought in the state of incorporation 1 while other decisions of the same courts have permitted seizure of the res 2 or actions quasi in rem 3 in the jurisdiction where the certificates were located. This state of the law was unsatisfactory and likely to lead to conflicting decisions in different jurisdictions as to title to the same shares. The rule that the court which first seizes the res in an action quasi in rem has exclusive jurisdictiondoes not afford a complete solution to this problem, since the several courts might differ on questions of fact and law as to what constitutes an effective seizure of such an intangible as a share of stock.5 The Uniform Stock Transfer Act-by its provisions that "title to a certificate and to the shares represented thereby" shall be transferred only by delivery of the certificate, 6 that notwithstanding the transfer of a certificate and the shares represented thereby has been rescinded or set aside, nevertheless, a subsequent bona fide purchaser of the certificate from the transferee in possession of the certificate acquires "an indet A. B., 1898, LL. B., 19Ol, Yale University; member of the Cleveland Bar; author of articles in various legal periodicals.