" See also Petty v. Knight-Petty Mercantile Co., 93 Okla. 187, 220 P. 835, 837. In the case of Litchfield v. Henson Oil Co., 53 Okla. 550, 157 P. 137, 138, L.R.A. 1917A, 54, the court said: "It is well known that stock certificates of all kinds have been construed in such a way that they have become the basis of commercial transactions in all the large cities in the country, and are sold in open market the same as other securities; and, whilst they are neither in the form or character of commercial paper, they approximate it as nearly as practicable." See also Capitol Hill Undertaking Co. v. Render, 149 Okla. 132, 299 P. 854, and Render v. Capitol Hill Undertaking Co., 176 Okla. 636, 53 P.2d 251.

Under that rule the transfer of the certificates of shares from C.P. Beauchamp to Street Draper was valid and passed the title, unless Street Draper had actual or constructive notice of the invalidity of the title of C.P. Beauchamp. There is nothing in the record tending to cast suspicion upon the bona fides of the transfer of the certifiCates from C.P. Beauchamp to Street Draper and they were purchasers thereof for value. Upon their surrender of the certificates for cancellation they were entitled to have new certificates issued to them in lieu of those surrendered. Litchfield v. Henson Oil Co., 53 Okla. 550, 157 P. 137. The corporation, upon the demand of Street Draper and the surrender of the certificates, canceled the Beauchamp certificates delivered to Street Draper and issued new certificates to Street Draper. The corporation could do nothing else under the law, and there could be no liability upon the part of the corporation for having performed its ministerial duty in issuing the new certificates upon the performance of the conditions as aforesaid. Had it refused, it could have been compelled to do so by a court of equity.

"We affirm the jurisdiction of equity in this case on the ground that defendant is a trustee for its shareholder, the estate of Charles H. Baker, as to these 50 shares of capital stock; that its legal duty was not only to properly manage and protect the amount of capital contributed by Charles H. Baker, but also to protect his title thereto, so far as to permit no fraudulent or unauthorized cancellation of his certificate." The following cases sustain the rule that in the kind of a case set out in plaintiff's amended petition a court of equity has jurisdiction: Vernon, G. R. R. Co. Washington Civil Tp. ex rel. Deem (Ind.) 95 N.E. 599; Ryan v. Seaboard R. R. Co. et al., 89 Fed. 397. A case very much like the case at bar was before this court in Litchfield v. Henson Oil Co., 53 Okla. 550, 157 P. 137. See, also, First National Bank of Sulphur Springs, Texas, v. J. B. Stribling et al., 16 Okla. 41, 86 P. 512. The following authorities are, in our judgment, sufficient to sustain the jurisdiction of a court of equity.

" And the same rule is announced in the case of Haynes v. Brown, 18 Okla. 389, 89 P. 1124, Litchfield v. Henson Oil Co., 53 Okla. 550, 157 P. 137; and under these authorities, we think that the transfer of the stock by Petty to Ellinger is clearly binding between them, and that Petty cannot be heard to complain by reason of the fact that Ellinger had never surrendered the shares, and asked that they be transferred on the books of the corporation. Plaintiff in error further complains of the manner in which the corporation was organized, after his resignation as president and manager of the mercantile company.