The defendants contend that the evidence shows that Universal and the other defendants did not have either actual or constructive knowledge of any equitable interest in the Dubbs patents, and that the word "trustee" which appeared in the certificates that were issued to Jesse A. Dubbs did not impose any duty on Universal to make inquiry at the time the shares were transferred, or if a duty did exist, it was satisfied by inquiring of the holders of the stock as to the meaning of the term, under the authorities in the states of South Dakota, California, and Illinois and in other states. Rua v. Watson, et al., 13 S.D. 453, 83 N.W. 572; Thompson v. Toland, 48 Cal. 99; Fletcher v. Kidder, 163 Cal. 769, 127 P. 73; Illinois Uniform Fiduciaries Act, Section 3, Ill. Stat. 1945, p. 2295, c. 98 § 236; Mudge v. Mitchell Hutchins Co., 322 Ill. App. 409, 54 N.E.2d 708; Mercantile Nat. Bank v. Parsons, 54 Minn. 56, 55 N.W. 825, 40 Am.St.Rep. 299; Crigler v. Rouse, Trustee, 209 Ky. 439, 272 S.W. 905. So far as the mere addition of the word "trustee" in the Dubbs certificates of stock is concerned, the authorities cited by the defendants are persuasive on the proposition that an inquiry of the person holding the stock as trustee would satisfy the rule stated in Fletcher Cyclopedia Corporations, if the answer to the inquiry gave reasonable and plausible grounds for the transfer and fairly showed, in the circumstances, that a trust was not being violated.