# Holmes v. Birtman Electric Co.

> Illinois Supreme Court · January 22, 1960 · 18 Ill. 2d 554

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9885003

## Case

- **Full name:** Helen M. Holmes, Appellant, vs. Birtman Electric Company Et Al., Appellees
- **Court:** Illinois Supreme Court
- **Decided:** January 22, 1960
- **Citations:** 18 Ill. 2d 554; 165 N.E.2d 261; 75 A.L.R. 2d 735; 1960 Ill. LEXIS 290
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by House
- **Judges:** Hopkins
- **Cited by:** 6 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9885003

## Opinion text

Mr. Chief Justice House, specially concurring:
I can accept the conclusion of the majority, but not the reasoning leading up to such conclusion. The officers and transfer agents of the corporation are told that they cannot arrogate to themselves the functions of a court bv refusing to register the transfer, but in the next breath they are held responsible for failure to adjudicate the adverse claim as invalid.
A corporation, or its transfer agent, is justified in temporarily delaying a transfer when notified to do so by a third party claimant and making an investigation of the claim. If not then satisfied of the safety in making the transfer immediately, it should notify the owner seeking the transfer of its grounds for refusal. It should further state the requirements to be met for its protection as a prerequisite to recording the transfer. Where reasonable grounds for refusal exist, a bond indemnifying and saving it harmless from loss could be demanded. The person seeking the transfer could not then complain if he failed to give a bond.
Applying the foregoing to this case, I am of the opinion that the defendants had reasonable grounds for temporarily delaying transfer in order to investigate the claim, but they should have given the plaintiff a means of preventing loss rather than arbitrarily refusing to do anything until a suit, found to be frivolous and without foundation, became final.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9885003. Public record. Not legal advice.