Large v. Consolidated Nat. Bank

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

Large v. Consolidated Nat. Bank

137 F. 168, 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 5213

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York·Decided January 24, 1905·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

WALLACE, Circuit Judge.

This is an application for a mandamus to compel the defendant to permit the plaintiff to have an inspection of its list of shareholders, granted upon section 5210 of the Revised Statutes of the United States [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3498]. It must be denied for two reasons:

First. It does not appear by the petition that the matter in dispute exceeds the value of $2,000. The only averment from which the amount in controversy can be ascertained is that the plaintiff is the registered owner of 10 shares of the capital stock of the defendant. The controversy' is, therefore, not one of which this court has jurisdiction.

Second. This court has power to issue a mandamus only in the exercise of a jurisdiction to which it is an ancillary proceeding. Notwithstanding the very cogent reasons given in the dissenting opinion in Rosenbaum v. Bauer, 120 U. S. 450, 7 Sup. Ct. 633, 30 L. Ed. 743, to the contrary, the judgment in that case must be accepted as controlling upon this court.

The petition is denied.

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

WALLACE, Circuit Judge.

This is an application for a mandamus to compel the defendant to permit the plaintiff to have an inspection of its list of shareholders, granted upon section 5210 of the Revised Statutes of the United States [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3498]. It must be denied for two reasons:

First. It does not appear by the petition that the matter in dispute exceeds the value of $2,000. The only averment from which the amount in controversy can be ascertained is that the plaintiff is the registered owner of 10 shares of the capital stock of the defendant. The controversy' is, therefore, not one of which this court has jurisdiction.

Second. This court has power to issue a mandamus only in the exercise of a jurisdiction to which it is an ancillary proceeding. Notwithstanding the very cogent reasons given in the dissenting opinion in Rosenbaum v. Bauer, 120 U. S. 450, 7 Sup. Ct. 633, 30 L. Ed. 743, to the contrary, the judgment in that case must be accepted as controlling upon this court.

The petition is denied.

Large v. Consolidated Nat. Bank, 137 F. 168, 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 5213 (circtsdny 1905).

Pincite

137 F. 168 (Large v. Consolidated Nat. Bank) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related