Markle v. Local Union No. 641, of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters
This text of 17 A.2d 783 (Markle v. Local Union No. 641, of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters) 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.
Opinion
The complainant, alleging himself to be a member of the defendant union and in his own behalf and in behalf of all others similarly situate, filed a bill in the Court of Chancery alleging fraudulent mismanagement of the affairs of the defendant union by its officers and by those pretending that they were such. He sought the appointment of a receiver.
An amended answer denied complainant’s membership and joined issue on many of the allegations of the bill which are not necessary for our determination of the present case, which is an appeal from an order directing the proper officers of the union to present to a master in Chancery named in the order for inspection and custody the following books of the union:
*33 “1. Ledgers for the period, September 1st, 1936, to date.
“2. Day books showing receipts of dues for the years September 1st, 1936, to date.
“3. Receipt and expense books for the period September 1st, 1936, to date.
“4. Minute books from September 1st, 1936, to date.
“5. Check books and canceled checks from September 1st, 1936, to date.
“6. Original initiation blanks showing the names of the various persons proposed for membership and initiated for the period September 1st, 1936, to date.
“7. Original vouchers signed by the president and recording secretary and against which checks were drawn for the period September 1st, 1936, to date.”
The petition on which the order for inspection and custody was entered was duly verified. It shows a sufficient basis for the action taken. An order in Chancery for. the inspection of books rests in the sound discretion of that court. Lawless v. Fleming, 56 N. J. Eq. 815; Fuller v. Alexander Hollander & Co., 61 N. J. Eq. 648; Cocheu v. New Jersey General Security Co., 121 N. J. Eq. 457.
To deny inspection in this case would .result in the denial of a remedy for the alleged wrong.
The order appealed from is affirmed.
For affirmance — The Chief-Justice, Paekee, Case, Bodine, Dojstges, Hehee, Peesicie, Postee, Deae, Wells, , WolfsKeil, Raffebty, Hague, JJ. 13.
For reversal — None.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
17 A.2d 783, 129 N.J. Eq. 32, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/markle-v-local-union-no-641-of-the-international-brotherhood-of-nj-1941.