Bruning v. Hoboken Printing & Publishing Co.

50 A. 906, 67 N.J.L. 119, 38 Vroom 119, 1902 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 182
CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey
DecidedJanuary 13, 1902
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 50 A. 906 (Bruning v. Hoboken Printing & Publishing Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bruning v. Hoboken Printing & Publishing Co., 50 A. 906, 67 N.J.L. 119, 38 Vroom 119, 1902 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 182 (N.J. 1902).

Opinion

[120]*120The opinion of the court was delivered by

Fort, J.

The rule of the common law as to the right of inspection by stockholders of the books of a trading company exists-here, and such right may be enforced by this court by mandamus. Rosenfeld v. Einstein, 17 Vroom 479.

The right is not to be given to gratify curiosity or for speculative purposes, but only when its exercise is sought in good faith and for a specific purpose. Such purpose must appear by the proofs on the application or the writ will be denied. Matter of Steinway, 159 N. Y. 250; Phœnix Iron Co. v. Commonwealth, 113 Pa. St. 563; Rosenfeld v. Einstein, supra.

The allowance of the writ is within the discretion of the court, upon the facts presented in each particular case.

In the application now before the court there is no evidence indicating the purpose of the relator in seeking the right to inspect the cash-book and other books of the company, and in that condition of the proof the writ must be denied.

Among the books mentioned in this application is the stock-book. Every stockholder, by our statute, has a right to inspect that at all times during business hours. Pamph. L. 1896, p. 288, § 33.

There was no claim on the argument that the right to inspect the stock-book alone was'denied to the relator. Indeed, the proof shows that it was not.

The writ in this case is denied, but without costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Fleisher Development Corp. v. Home Owners Warranty Corp.
670 F. Supp. 27 (District of Columbia, 1987)
Delmarmo Associates v. New Jersey Engineering & Supply Co.
424 A.2d 847 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1980)
Pilat v. Broach Systems, Inc.
260 A.2d 13 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1969)
Panhandle Cooperative Royalty Company v. McLain
355 P.2d 1047 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1960)
Feist v. Joseph Dixon Crucible Co.
103 A.2d 893 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1954)
Siena v. Grand Lodge, Etc., Order Sons of Italy
78 A.2d 610 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1951)
Albee v. Lamson & Hubbard Corp.
69 N.E.2d 811 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1946)
State ex rel. McClure v. Malleable Iron Range Co.
187 N.W. 646 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1922)
State Ex Rel. Costelo v. Middlesex Banking Co.
88 A. 861 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1913)
State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Monida & Yellowstone Stage Co.
124 N.W. 971 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1910)
State ex rel. O'Hara v. National Biscuit Co.
54 A. 241 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1903)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
50 A. 906, 67 N.J.L. 119, 38 Vroom 119, 1902 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 182, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bruning-v-hoboken-printing-publishing-co-nj-1902.