Sage v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co.

Headnote

The L. S. & M. S. R. Co., organized under the Act of 1869 (chap. 917, Laws of 1869), by the consolidation of various foreign and domestic railroad companies, is a domestic, not a foreign corporation, and therefore the provisions of the act of 1842 (chap. 165, Laws of 1842) to compel transfer agents of foreign corporations to exhibit lists of their stockholders have no application to it.

Being a domestic corporation, it comes within and is controlled by the provision of the Revised Statutes (1 R. S. 601, § 1), requiring the transfer book and books containing the names of stockholders of any incorporated company to .be open for inspection for thirty days previous to the election of directors.

The statute last mentioned does not deprive the stockholders of the right to examine the transfer books of a corporation, for proper purposes and on proper occasions, at other times; and a proceeding by mandamus may be invoked for the purpose of enforcing such right.

The granting of the writ, however, is in the discretion of the court, and an order refusing it is not reviewable here.

Appeal from order of the General Term of the Supreme Court, in the first judicial department, affirming an order of Special Term denying an application for a mandamus to compel the Lake Shore and Michigan Southern Railway Company and its directors to exhibit to petitioners, stockholders of said corporation, its transfer book 'and list of stockholders.

The said corporation was organized under the act chapter 917, Laws of 1869, by the consolidation of several railroad corporations, one of which was a domestic corporation.

A member of a corporation has, by the common law, the right to an inspection of the books of the corporation for the purpose of establishing or maintaining his rights. (Rex v. Shelley, 3 Tenn. R., 142; Rex v. Babb, ib. 580; Harrison v. Williams,

3 Barn. & Cress., 162; Rogers v. Jones, 5 D. & R, 484; Grant on Corporations, 311; People v. Cornell, 47 Barb., 329 ; Hubert v. Ashburner, 1 Wils., 297; Dillon on Mun. Corp, § 240; Am. Co. v. Haven, 101 Mass., 398 ; State v. Goll, 3 Vroom., 285 ; Hatch v. City B., 1 Rob. La., 470 ; Merchant Tailors’ Co., 2 Barn. & Ad., 115; Cotheal v. Brown, 1 Selden, 563; Angel & A. on Corp., 572; Imp. Co. v. Clarke, 7 Barry, 95; 2 Starkie Ev., 736; Rex v. Buckingham, 8 B. & C., 375; 3d Ld. Raymcnd, 303; Grey v. Hopkins, 7 Mod., 129; 2d Ld. Raymond, 851; Foster v. Bk. of England, 15 Law I. N. S., 2 B., 212 ; Cockburn v. Union Bk., 13 La. Ann., 289 ; Rex v. Hostmen of Newcastle, 1 Strange, 1223; Rex v. Trustees, 5 Barn. & Adol., 978; Regina v. Tealey, 8 Jur., 496; People v. Walker, 9 Mich., 328 ; St. Luke's Church v. Slack, 7 Cush., 226 ; Rex v. Wildman, Strange, 879; Anon., 1 Barn. K. B., 402; Pratt v. Meriden Co., 35 Conn., 36 ; Hare on Discovery, Ed. 1876, p. 260; Goodwin v. Cin. Canal Co., 18 Ohio State R., 169; 21 Wall [U. S. Sup. Ct.], 616;. Hatch v. City Bk. N. O., 1 Robinson [Sup. Ct. Louisiana], 470; Rex v. The Hostmen of New Castle, 2 Strange, p. 1221; Chancery King’s Bench Com. Pleas, Exchequer; Hoyle v. P. & M. Co., 54 N. Y., 314 ; Koehler v. Black River Co., 2 Black, 715 ; Vid. cases cited in Green’s Brice, ultra vires, 400; Rex v. Merch. Tailors' Co., 2 Barnwell & Adolphus, p. 117; The King v. The Mer. Tailors Co., 2 Barn. & Ad., p. 125; Hatch v. City Bk. of N. O., 1 Robinson [Sup. Ct., Louisiana R.], 470.) The writ of mandamus was the appropriate remedy. (High on Ex. Remedies, § 276; People v. Ins. Co., 19 Mich., 392 ; State v.Bd. Trustees, 4 Nev., 400 ; Fireman v. Mayor, 23 Md., 297 ; Rex v. Windham, Coup., 377; Rex v. Cambridge, Burr, 1647; King v. Bland, 7 Md., 35 ; Queen v. Kendall, 1 Ad. & E. N. S., 366; Richmond v. Pa. Ins. Co., 34 How. Pr., 195 ; Hatch v. N. W. R. R. Co., MSS.; Cotheal v. Brown, 1 Selden, 562; People v. Throop, 12 Wend., 183 ; High on Ex. Remedies, § 17; Fremont v. Crippen, 10 Cal, 211 ; Etheridge v. Hall, 7 Port., 47 ; In re Trustees of Williams-

burgh, 1 Barb., 34 ; King v. Bank of England, Doug., 524; Dodge v. Woolsey, 18 How., 331 ; 21 Wall, 616 ; Mechanics' Bk. v. De Bolt, 18 How., 330 ; Coleman's Admrs. v. Second Ave. R. R. Co., 38 N. Y., 202 ; Wynne v. Humberstone, 27 Beav., 421; Devanes v. Robinson, 21 Beav., 42; Talbot v. Marshfield, 2 Dr. & Sm., 285; Spungett v. Dashwood, 2 Gf., 521; Hardwick v. Vernom, 14 Ves., 510.) The writ of mandamus being an ordinary action at law, between parties in a case where it is an appropriate remedy, lies as well against a foreign as a domestic corporation. (Comw. v. Denison, 24 How., 66 ; Kendall v. U. S., 12 Pet., 527 ; Gil man v. Bassett, 36 Conn., 298 ; Aubery v. Beuvens, 6 Tex., 457 ; Barnett v. Ch. R. R., 4 Hun, 114 ; Prouty v. M. S. R. R., id. 665.

The corporation proceeded against is a domestic corporation, of this State. (7 Stat. at Large [Edm’s ed.], 529; A. & A. on Corps., § 633; Sprague v. H. P. & F. R. R. Co., 5 R. I., 233 .) A stockholder has no absolute right to examine the books of a corporation of which he is a member. (Taylor on Ev., § 1346; Rex v. Mer. T. Co., 2 B. & A., 115; Im. Gas Co. v. Clarke, 7 Bing., 95; B., B. & S. R. Co. v. White, 1 A. & E. [N. S.], 282; 2 Phil, on Ev., 314; People v. Walker, 9 Mich., 328 .) If the L. S. & M. S. R. R. Co. were a foreign corporation, the court would have no authority to issue the mandamus asked for. (People v. P. V. Vein Coal Co., 10 How. Pr., 543 .)