In re Hastings

120 A.D. 756, 105 N.Y.S. 834, 1907 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1304
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 15, 1907·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinions

Ingraham, J.:

The right to examine books of a corporation is purely .a personal right depending upon the-ownership of Capital: stock of the corporation. A stockholder as the owner of stock becomes a member of the corporation and it is based upon this fact of ownership in the corporation that his right is recognized at common law tb examine the books of the corporation, and be. informed as to its business. A mere custodian of stock holding it merely for the purposé of preserving it pending a litigation as to its ownership does not becoriie a member of 'the corporation and as such is not entitled to maintain [757]*757this proceeding. The petitioner is a stranger to the corporation, and whether he will ever be the owner of any stock or a member of the corporation depends upon the proceeding in the Surrogate’s Court. I have great doubt about the good faith of the application, but it is not a proceeding necessary to preserve the interest of the deceased in thef corporation, and I do not think the petitioner is in a position-to institute it. ' '

I think, therefore, the order appealed from should be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements,, and the motion /denied, with ten dollars costs.

McLaughlin and Claeke, JJ., concurred; Laughlin and Scott, JJ., dissented.

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

In re Hastings, 120 A.D. 756, 105 N.Y.S. 834, 1907 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1304 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1907).

120 A.D. 756 (In re Hastings) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In re Gill
192 Misc. 283 (New York Supreme Court, 1948)
In re the Estate of Steinberg
153 Misc. 339 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1934)
Cheatham v. Wheeling & L. E. Ry. Co.
37 F.2d 593 (S.D. New York, 1930)
McCall Co. v. . Wright
91 N.E. 516 (New York Court of Appeals, 1910)