Morris v. the United Piece Dye Works

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Morris v. the United Piece Dye Works

59 A.2d 660, 137 N.J.L. 262, 1948 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 120

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedJune 9, 1948

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 59 A.2d 660 (Morris v. the United Piece Dye Works) 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

Morris v. the United Piece Dye Works, 59 A.2d 660, 137 N.J.L. 262, 1948 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 120 (N.J. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Colie, J.

Relator'holds 20 shares of preferred stock in the respondent corporation out of an outstanding issue of 66,447 shares. He desired a list of the preferred stockholders for the purpose of presenting to them a plan of recapitalization and communicated that desire to the company but it declined to grant the request and countered with the suggestion that relator might meet with a committee appointed by the hoard of directors and discuss the plan of recapitalization with it. This offer relator declined.

The law is settled that a stockholder has a right to inspect the books of the corporation where the application is made in good faith and is for a purpose germane to the applicant’s rights as a stockholder. Feick v. Hill Bread Co., 91 N. J. L. 486; affirmed, 92 Id. 513. It needs no extended discussion to establish that a plan of recapitalization is germane, i. e., *263 relevant, to the rights of a stockholder. Eespondents do not challenge that the purpose is germane. They contest the application on the ground that it is not made in good faith. The burden of proof of bad faith is upon the corporation refusing the right of inspection to a stockholder. Vernam v. Scott, 12 N. J. Mis. R. 177. The respondents point out that relator is a stockbroker, that he mailed some fifteen postcards to stockholders offering to buy or sell the corporation’s preferred stock and that he refused to submit his proposed plan of recapitalization to the committee of the board of directors. We discern no evidence of bad faith in the aforesaid. No stigma attaches to relator by reason of his being a dealer in stocks, nor in circulating a limited number of stockholders with offers to buy or sell a particular class of stock of' the respondent corporation. The refusal to discuss the proposed plan with the directors’ committee may have been the exercise of poor judgment but it cannot reasonably be said to amount to bad faith.

A peremptory writ of mandamus is allowed, with costs.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Colie, J.

Relator'holds 20 shares of preferred stock in the respondent corporation out of an outstanding issue of 66,447 shares. He desired a list of the preferred stockholders for the purpose of presenting to them a plan of recapitalization and communicated that desire to the company but it declined to grant the request and countered with the suggestion that relator might meet with a committee appointed by the hoard of directors and discuss the plan of recapitalization with it. This offer relator declined.

The law is settled that a stockholder has a right to inspect the books of the corporation where the application is made in good faith and is for a purpose germane to the applicant’s rights as a stockholder. Feick v. Hill Bread Co., 91 N. J. L. 486; affirmed, 92 Id. 513. It needs no extended discussion to establish that a plan of recapitalization is germane, i. e., *263 relevant, to the rights of a stockholder. Eespondents do not challenge that the purpose is germane. They contest the application on the ground that it is not made in good faith. The burden of proof of bad faith is upon the corporation refusing the right of inspection to a stockholder. Vernam v. Scott, 12 N. J. Mis. R. 177. The respondents point out that relator is a stockbroker, that he mailed some fifteen postcards to stockholders offering to buy or sell the corporation’s preferred stock and that he refused to submit his proposed plan of recapitalization to the committee of the board of directors. We discern no evidence of bad faith in the aforesaid. No stigma attaches to relator by reason of his being a dealer in stocks, nor in circulating a limited number of stockholders with offers to buy or sell a particular class of stock of' the respondent corporation. The refusal to discuss the proposed plan with the directors’ committee may have been the exercise of poor judgment but it cannot reasonably be said to amount to bad faith.

A peremptory writ of mandamus is allowed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 A.2d 660, 137 N.J.L. 262, 1948 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 120, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morris-v-the-united-piece-dye-works-nj-1948.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack