#### FANNIE P. HOLLADAY v. GENERAL MOTORS CORP. et al.

(Filed 23 May, 1945.)

Corporations § 13b—

In a suit in this State against an individual and a corporation, botb citizens of Delaware, to prevent the transfer of stock in the corporate defendant belonging to plaintiff, where, prior to time for answering, the individual defendant on special appearance moved to dismiss for want of service, and the corporate defendant also moved to dismiss for want of service on the individual and for lack of jurisdiction of the subject matter, an order by the court, impounding the stock and dissolving a temporary restraining order against the individual, was proper and suffices to protect the corporate defendant from any failure to transfer the stock.

Devin, L, took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Appeal by defendant, General Motors Corporation, from Burney, J., at Chambers in Wilmington, 30 September, 1944. From New HaNOveb.

Civil action to recover stock certificates and to restrain their transfer.

*231The plaintiff alleges that sbe is the owner of 1,575 shares of the common stock of General Motors Corporation, represented by certificates registered in her name; that abont fifteen years ago, upon the solicitation of her brother-in-law, Charles B. Holladay, and reposing confidence in his integrity, the stock was delivered to him for safekeeping and for such disposition as the plaintiff should direct; that at the same time the plaintiff executed certain blank assignments and powers of attorney for use in transferring the stock, if and when needed to carry out the plaintiff’s instructions; that thereafter the defendant, Charles B. Holladay, wrongfully and in violation of plaintiff’s rights threatened to have the stock transferred in his name, whereupon the plaintiff placed a stop-transfer order with the defendant corporation and notified both defendants that the assignments and powers of attorneys were thereby revoked; and that notwithstanding these instructions, Charles B. Holladay has presented the certificates to the General Motors Corporation with request that they be transferred to him.

This suit was instituted in New Hanover County on 19 August, 1944, against Charles B. Holladay, a resident of the State of Delaware, General Motors Corporation, a Delaware corporation domesticated and doing business in North Carolina with local process agent, and A. B. Hull, a resident of New York and transfer agent pf the corporate defendant.

A temporary restraining order was elitered in the cause returnable on the 1st day of September, 1944.

Thereafter and prior to time for answering, the defendant, Charles B. Holladay, filed special appearance and moved to dismiss for want of proper service. This motion has not yet been heard or ruled upon.

The General Motors Corporation also filed motion to dismiss for want of service on Charles B. Holladay and for lack of jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the controversy.

On the hearing of this latter motion, the court found that the stock in question had been presented to the corporate defendant by Charles B. Holladay with request that it be transferred to him that no transfer had been made, and that the certificates were still in the hands of the corporate defendant. The injunction was thereupon dissolved as to Charles B. Holladay, the stock was impounded and ordered to be delivered to the clerk of the Superior Court to await further orders in the cause.

From this order, General Motors Corporation appeals.

Carr, James ■& Carr for plaintiff, appellee.

Rountree & Rountree for defendant, appellant.

Stacy, C. J.

The status of the named defendant, Charles B. Holla-day, whether properly in court and subject to its orders, is an open and *232disputed question. No determination of tbe matter bas been made in tbe Superior Court. Tbis suffices to sustain tbe order impounding tbe stock and to protect tbe corporate defendant from any claim for failure to transfer it. Indeed, it may be doubted whether an agent who executes a power of attorney in bis own favor, without specific authorization, would do more than convert himself into a trustee. Hatcher v. Williams, ante, 112; LaVecchia v. Land Bank, 218 N. C., 35, 9 S. E. (2d), 489. But however tbis may be, we apprehend, tbe basis of tbe dissolution of tbe injunction against Charles B. Holladay was tbe plaintiff’s revocation of bis authority and tbe fact that be no longer bad possession of tbe stock. 2 Am. Jur., 39.

No error bas been shown in respect of tbe order from which tbe corporate defendant appeals. Tbe cause bas not yet been reached for bearing upon tbe merits.

Affirmed.

DeviN,' J\, took no part in tbe consideration or decision of tbis case.