Fay v. Coughlin-Sandford Switch Co.

The plaintiff, among other things in his complaint, alleged, and upon the trial testified, that on or about the 6th day of December, 1904, he demanded permission to inspect the stoekbook of the defendant, but that the defendant refused to allow him to take extracts from the book produced as its stoekbook, and which “did not contain,” as conceded, “the street and number of the stockholders resident in cities, of whom there were many, and that for more than half the stockholders mentioned in said book the word ‘unknown’ was inserted in the column provided for the amount paid on said stock.” It was conceded that the plaintiff became a stockholder on December 5, 1904.

By the provisions of section 53 of the Stock Corporation Law, Laws 1892, p. 1840, c. 688, as amended by Laws 1897, p. 314, c. 384, § 3, it is mandatory upon every foreign corporation having an office for the transaction of business in this state to keep a book, “to be known as a stock book, containing the names alphabetically arranged, of all persons who are stockholders of the corporation, showing their places of residence, the number of shares of stock held by them respectively, the time when they respectively became the owners thereof, and the amount paid thereon.” In Recknagel v. Empire Self-Lighting Oil Lamp Co., 24 Misc. Rep. 193 , 195, 52 N. Y. Supp. 635 , this court said:

“The statute in question was evidently enacted for the purpose of enabling stockholders of a stock corporation to inspect its stoekbook at its office in the state, or at the office of its transfer agent, if any, within the state, during business hours. If this view is well founded, then it is obvious jhat such book must be kept in the office referred to, that a stockholder has a right to insist upon there making an inspection of the book, and that he is not required to go elsewhere for that purpose.”

Much less would he seem to be required to be satisfied with a factitious book which was i conceded to be not in conformity to statute, for information obtained therefrom would be of little value. Moreover, from the book that was produced he was not allowed to take extracts. This was his right, for “the right of inspection * * * carries with it the right to make such extracts from the book as will enable the shareholder to retain the information disclosed by the inspector.” People ex rel. Lorge v. Consolidated Nat. Bank (decided by the Appellate Division of this Department in May, 1905) 94 N. Y. Supp. 173 . Upon the facts proven and

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.