Kinney v. Mexican Plantation Co.

82 A. 93, 233 Pa. 232, 1911 Pa. LEXIS 489
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided October 23, 1911·No. Appeal, No. 187·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam,

This appeal is from an order dismissing a petition for a mandamus to require the defendant’s officers to permit the relator to examine the books and records of the corporation defendant that contain the names and addresses of its stockholders. A mandamus was refused and the petition dismissed for the reason that the matter of complaint related to the internal management of a foreign corporation and the dispute was between a stockholder and the corporation. That the court was without jurisdiction is clearly settled by our decisions. In Madden v. Electric Light Co., 181 Pa. 617, it was held that a Pennsylvania court will not entertain a stockholder’s bill against a foreign corporation when the matter complained of relates to the internal management of the company. This ruling has since been approved and followed in Madden v. Electric Light Co., 199 Pa. 454, and McCloskey v. Snowden, 212 Pa. 249.

The order is affirmed at the cost of the appellant.

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

Kinney v. Mexican Plantation Co., 82 A. 93, 233 Pa. 232, 1911 Pa. LEXIS 489 (Pa. 1911).

82 A. 93 (Kinney v. Mexican Plantation Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Genetti v. Victory Markets, Inc.
362 F. Supp. 124 (M.D. Pennsylvania, 1973)
Oliver v. Insul-Mastic Corp.
6 Pa. D. & C.2d 64 (Alleghany County Court of Common Pleas, 1955)
Conerty v. Butler County Oil Refining Co.
152 A. 672 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1930)
Cunliffe v. Consumers Ass'n of America
124 A. 501 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1924)
Callery's Appeal
116 A. 222 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1922)
Tolbert v. Modern Woodmen of America
145 P. 183 (Washington Supreme Court, 1915)