Majority
Headnote
Corporations—Right of Pledgee of Stock to Examine Books—Mandamus.In May, 1892, John Howard, the owner of certificate No. 29, for 50 shares of the capital stock of, William A. Miles & ■ Co., a domestic corporation, being indebted to one Frank Seaman, indorsed the said certificate to the First National Bank of the City of Brooklyn, to secure it for moneys advanced and to be advanced by it
The statute provides that “no transfer of stock shall be valid as against the corporation, its stockholders and creditors, for any purpose * * * until it shall have been entered in such book as required by this section, by an entry showing from and to whom transferred” (Stock Corporation Law,—Laws 1892, c. 688, § 29); that “no person holding stock in any corporation as collateral security * * * shall be personally subject to liability as a stockholder; but the person pledging such stock shall be considered the holder thereof, ■and shall be liable as stockholder” (Id. § 54); and that “every pledgor •of stock standing in his name on the books of the corporation shall be deemed the owner thereof for the purposes of this section.” General Corporation Law (Laws 1892, c. 687, § 20). Under these provisions, the bank is not a stockholder, and is not entitled to the benefits or subject to the responsibilities therein mentioned. Adderly v. Storm, 6 Hill, 624 ; Rosevelt v. Brown, 11 N. Y. 148 ; United States Trust Co. v. United States Fire Ins. Co., 18 N. Y. 199 ; Shellington v. Howland, 53 N. Y. 371 . The company has in no way recognized the right of the bank as a stockholder, and has declined so to do, and is justified in the position it has taken. The Steinway Case, 159 N. Y. 250 , 53 N. E. 1103 , holds that the common-law right of a stockholder with reference to the inspection of the books of his corporation still exists in this state, unimpaired by legislation, and that the supreme court has power, as part of its general jurisdiction, to enforce the right, in its sound discretion, upon good cause shown. But that decision in no wise helps the bank, for, as before shown, it is not a stockholder, in the proper sense of that term. It is true that the pledging of the stock conferred upon the bank, as pledgee, certain legal and equitable rights, but the one invoked is not among them. The company owed the bank no legal duty which it has refused to perform. -Consequently the motion for a mandamus must be denied.
Motion denied.
Cases cited
- Rosevelt v. Brown 11 N. Y. 148 p. 1043
- United States Trust Co. v. United States Fire Insurance 18 N. Y. 199 p. 1043
- Shellington v. Howland 53 N. Y. 371 p. 1043
- In re Steinway 159 N. Y. 250 p. 1043