a foreign state,32 although there are some decisions to the contrary.33 Under some statutes it is provided that the court may, upon proper cause shown, summarily order books of a corporation to be forthwith brought into the state for inspection.34 Such a statute is to be construed liberally,35 in accordance with its declared objects,36 but it does 32 State v. Jessup & Moore Paper Co., 7 Pennew. (Del.) 397, 72 Atl. 1057. The court may compel a domestic corporation to bring its books and papers into the state for an inspection, where they are kept in another state. Huylar v. Cragin Cattle Co., 40 N. J. Eq. 392, 2 Atl. 274; Mitchell v. Rubber Reclaiming Co. (N. J. Ch.), 24 Atl. 407. On a petition for mandamus, an averment of the defendant that the books and papers are in another state, is of no avail, since if inspection is necessary, the court will order their production. State v. Jessup & Moore Paper Co., 7 Pennew. (Del.) 397, 72 Atl. 1057. 33 Mitchell v. Northern Security Oil & Transportation Co., 44 N. Y. Misc. 514, 90 N. Y. Supp. 60. See also Nettles v. McConnell (Ala.), 43 So. 838. 34 Under the New Jersey General Corporation Act, § 44, the Court of Chancery or the Supreme Court or any justice thereof, may upon proper cause shown, summarily, order any or all of the books of said corporation to be forthwith brought within the state, and kept therein at such place and for such time as may be designated in such order, and the charter of any corporation failing to comply with such order may be declared forfeited by the court making such order, and it shall thereupon cease to be a corporation, and all its directors and officers shall be liable to be punished for contempt of court for disobedience of such order. Fuller v. Alexander Hollander & Co., 61 N. J. Eq. 648, 88 Am. St. Rep. 456, 47 Atl. 646. Statute impliedly gives power to order inspection after books have been brought into state. Huylar v. Cragin Cattle Co., 40 N. J. Eq. 392, 2 Atl. 274. 35 The statute is remedial and should be construed liberally even though of penal character. Huylar v. Cragin Cattle Co., 40 N. J. Eq. 392, 2 Atl. 274. 36 Statute was intended to secure to stockholders and others interested the means of compelling a domestic corporation to bring its books into the state to answer any legitimate purpose which would be defeated by the keeping of the books out of the state and to promote any lawful object in the pursuit of which the persons interested might be unduly impaired or prejudiced by the keeping of the books out of the state. Huylar v. Cragin Cattle Co., 40 N. J. Eq. 392, 2 Atl. 274. The purpose of New Jersey Corporation Act, § 44 (P. L. 1896, p. 292, c. 185), requiring the keeping of the books in the state and authorizing the court to order the books to be brought within the state, was to give the stockholder under an order of court, or to give the court for its own purposes, power to require the books to be produced within the state for examination. Hodgens v. United Copper Co. (N. J. L.), 67 Atl. 756. The power conferred by the General Corporation Act of New Jersey (P. L. 1896, p. 292, § 44) summarily to order the books of a corporation to be brought within the state "on proper cause shown,' can be exercised only when the judicial authority whose action is invoked can exercise not enlarge the jurisdiction of the court to compel the production of books,37 It will be noted that the power is conferred upon the court only "upon proper cause shown." 38 § 2840. Copying from books. The right of a stockholder to make copies, abstracts, and memoranda of documents, books and papers is an incident to the right of inspection,39 being recognized at the common law.40 Also, a statute giving a stockholder the right to inspect and examine books and papers of the corporation gives him control over the books after compliance with the order. Fuller v. Alexander Hollander & Co., 61 N. J. Eq. 648, 88 Am. St. Rep. 456, 47 Atl. 646. 37 Under General Corporation Act, § 44, there is no legislative purpose to enlarge jurisdiction with regard to the compulsory production of books for inspection. Fuller v. Alexander Hollander & Co., 61 N. J. Eq. 648, 88 Am. St. Rep. 456, 47 Atl. 646. Power to order the examination of books under New Jersey Corporation Act, § 44 (P. L. 1896, p. 292, c. 185), existed outside of the statute, by mandamus, and the same is proper remedy, even where a summary order of the justice might answer the purpose. Hodgens v. United Copper Co. (N. J. L.), 67 Atl. 756. 38 Under New Jersey Corporation Act, § 44 (P. L. 1896, p. 292), providing that the court may "upon proper cause shown" summarily order the books to be forthwith brought into the state and kept at the place ordered, the quoted words mean a cause, the propriety of which is made to appear to the court. National Packing Co. v. Garven, 79 N. J. L. 266, 78 Atl. 703. Where it appears that the right of inspection was deliberately refused a stockholder and that the capital stock has depreciated in value within a short time, and other facts warranting inspection are shown, the corpora tion will be ordered to bring its books into the state for inspection by the stockholder seeking it. Huylar v. Cragin Cattle Co., 40 N. J. Eq. 392, 2 Atl. 274. New Jersey General Corporation Act, § 44 (P. L. 1896, p. 292), providing for the bringing into the state of corporate books upon proper cause shown, does not authorize the bringing of a suit in equity for such purpose when the stockholder merely desires examination of the books or to have access to them. Maeder v. Buffalo Bill's Wild West Co., 132 Fed. 280. 39 State v. Jessup & Moore Paper Co., 7 Pennew. (Del.) 397, 72 Atl. 1057; Cincinnati Volksblatt Co. v. Hoffmeister, 62 Ohio St. 189, 48 L. R. A. 732, 78 Am. St. Rep. 707, 56 N. E. 1033. "The right to make copies, and to make abstracts and memoranda, of documents, books, and papers, by a stockholder in an incorporated company, is as full and complete as the right of inspection thereof." Swift v. State, 7 Houst. (Del.) 338, 40 Am. St. Rep. 127, 32 Atl. 143, 6 Atl. 856; Nelson v. Anglo-American Land Mortg. Agency Co., [1897] 1 Ch. 130. 40 At common law it was frequently held that the right to make copies and minutes was necessarily incidental to right to inspect. Withington Bradley, 111 Me. 384, 89 Atl. 201. V. the right to make abstracts, memoranda or copies thereof.41 The right rests, as does the similar right to examination, upon the broad ground that the business of the corporation is not the business of the officers exclusively, but is the business of the stockholders.42 Under some statutes the right to take copies is limited to such part as concerns the stockholders' interests.43 § 2841. Restrictions. The rule that inspection must be exercised at a reasonable and proper time and place, means that the right must be exercised in such a manner as not to interfere with the business of the corporation 44 and business hours have been held to be "reasonable hours" in which to inspect books.45 41 Powelson v. Tennessee Eastern Elec. Co., 220 Mass. 380, Ann. Cas. 1917 A 102, 107 N. E. 997; Henry v. Babcock & Wilcox Co., 196 N. Y. 302, 134 Am. St. Rep. 835, 89 N. E. 942; In re Martin, 62 Hun (N. Y.) 557, 17 N. Y. Supp. 133; Althause v. Giroux, 56 N. Y. Misc. 508, 107 N. Y. Supp. 191; Fay v. Coughlin-Sandford Switch Co., 47 N. Y. Misc. 687, 94 N. Y. Supp. 628; Cotheal v. Brower, 5 N. Y. Leg. O. 175, aff'g 5 N. Y. 562, 10 Barb. (N. Y.) 216; Com. v. Phoenix Iron Co., 105 Pa. St. 111, 51 Am. Rep. 184. See also Com. v. Empire Passenger Ry. Co., 134 Pa. St. 237, 19 Atl. 629. The New York statute (Laws 1892, c. 688, p. 1840, § 53, as amended by Laws 1897, c. 384, p. 314) requiring that foreign corporations keep a stock book and that such book shall be open daily during business hours for the inspection" of its stockholders and prescribing a penalty for failure to comply therewith does not render such a corporation liable to the penalty for refusing to permit a stockholder to inspect the stock book and take a list of the stockholders therefrom. Henry v. Babcock & Wilcox Co., 125 N. Y. App. Div. 538, 109 N. Y. Supp. 853; People v. Giroux Consol. Mines Co., 122 N. Y. App. Div. 617, 107 N. Y. Supp. 188; Althause v. Giroux, 56 N. Y. Misc. 508, 107 N. Y. Supp. 191. 42 Cincinnati Volksblatt Co. v. Hoff meister, 62 Ohio St. 189, 48 L. R. A. 732, 78 Am. St. Rep. 707, 56 N. E. 1033. 43 Under the statute (Maine Rev. St. c. 47, § 20), the right "to take copies and minutes therefrom" is limited to such parts "as concern their interests." Withington v. Bradley, 111 Me. 384, 89 Atl. 201; White v. Manter, 109 Me. 408, 42 L. R. A. (N. S.) 332, 84 Atl. 890. 44 State v. St. Louis Transit Co., 124 Mo. App. 111, 100 S. W. 1126; Kuhbach v. Irving Cut Glass Co., 220 Pa. 427, 28 L. R. A. (N. S.) 185, 69 Atl. 981. Under the common law, a stockholder of a corporation has a right to examine its books and records at reasonable times; that is, at such hours as will not needlessly annoy the officials of the company or interfere with the conduct of its business. State v. Donnell Mfg. Co., 129 Mo. App. 206, 107 S. W. 1112. The right of inspection and examination must be exercised at reasonable and proper times. State v. Jessup & Moore Paper Co., 7 Pennew. (Del.) 397, 72 Atl. 1057; Richmond v. Hill, 148 Ill. App. 179; Weihenmayer v. Bitner, 88 Md. 325, 45 L. R. A. 446, 42 Atl. 245. 45 Clawson v. Clayton, 33 Utah 266, 93 Pac. 729. When an examination of books is desired, it is not unreasonable to insist that the books be not removed from the office, but such examination should be made at the place where the books are ordinarily kept.40 In some of the decisions it will be found that objections as to the time and place of inspection were mere pretexts put forward to avoid granting of the right of inspection.47 § 2842. Abuse of right. In cases dealing with the right of inspection, and the propriety of the purpose of the stockholder, dicta will be found to the effect that a corporation is not remediless if a stockholder or director abuses the right of inspection, or seeks to make improper use of the information which he obtains.48 But a bill for an injunction to prevent inspection which merely states that the examination and the publicity incident thereto are not desirable, and that the business of the corporation will be injured if the profits from the manufacture and sale of its articles are made known to business competitors or purchasers, does not show such irreparable injury as to justify the court of chancery in entertaining jurisdiction.49 § 2843. Assault on one using books improperly. Where a director or stockholder uses books for an improper purpose, and a secretary forcibly takes such books from him, using no more force than is necessary, he is not liable for the assault. This is a case of justifiable assault.50 VII. ENFORCEMENT OF RIGHT § 2844. Mandamus-In general. By the great weight of authority, mandamus is the proper remedy to enforce the right of inspection unless statutes operate to exclude the writ, and there is no difference in principle between cases where the right of inspec Marine Firemen's Union of San Francisco, 2 Cal. App. 638, 84 Pac. 270. Delaware. Swift v. State, 7 Houst. 338, 40 Am. St. Rep. 127, 32 Atl. 143, 6 Atl. 856. Illinois. Coquard v. National Linseed-Oil Co., 171 Ill. 480, 49 N. E. 563, aff'g 67 Ill. App. 20; People v. Weber Co., 159 Ill. App. 588; Heitkamp v. American Pigment & Chemical Co., 158 Ill. App. 587; Rodger Ballast Car Co. v. Perrin, 88 Ill. App. 323; Stone v. Kellogg, 62 Ill. App. 444, aff'd 165 Ill. 192, 56 Am. St. Rep. 240, 46 N. E. 222. Iowa. Boardman v. Marshalltown Grocery Co., 105 Iowa 445, 75 N. W. 343. Louisiana. State v. New Orleans Gaslight Co., 49 La. Ann. 1556, 22 So. $15; Legendre v. New Orleans Brewing Ass'n, 45 La. Ann. 669, 40 Am. St. Rep. 243, 12 So. 837; State v. Bienville Oil Works Co., 28 La. Ann. 204; Cockburn v. Union Bank, 13 La. Ann. 289. Maryland. Wight v. Heublein, 111 Md. 649, 75 Atl. 507; Weihenmayer v. Bitner, 88 Md. 325, 45 L. R. A. 446, 42 Atl. 245. Massachusetts. Klotz v. Pan-American Match Co., 221 Mass. 38, 108 N. E. 764; Andrews v. Mines Corporation, 205 Mass. 121, 137 Am. St. Rep. 428, 91 N. E. 122. Michigan. See Woodworth v. Old Second Nat. Bank, 154 Mich. 459, 15 Det. L. N. 773, 118 N. W. 581, 117 N. W. 893; People v. Walker, 9 Mich. 328. Missouri. State v. Donnell Mfg. Co., 129 Mo. App. 206, 107 S. W. 1112; State v. St. Louis Transit Co., 124 Mo. App. 111, 100 S. W. 1126. New Hampshire. Hub Const. Co. v. New England Breeders' Club, 74 N. H. 282, 67 Atl. 574. New Jersey. Fuller v. Alexander Hollander & Co., 61 N. J. Eq. 648, 88 Am. St. Rep. 456, 47 Atl. 646; Huylar v. Cragin Cattle Co., 40 N. J. Eq. 39 2, 2 Atl. 274; Trimble v. America n Sugar-Refining Co. (N. J. Ch.), 48 At L. 912. v. New York. In re Steinway, 159 N. Y. 250, 45 L. R. A. 461, 53 N. E. 1103; Hitchcock v. Union Ferry Co. of New York & Brooklyn, 157 App. Div328, 142 N. Y. Supp. 247; People Consolidated Fire Alarm Co., 142 AppDiv. 753, 127 N. Y. Supp. 348; Paper Utah Gold & Copper Mines Co-> 135 App. Div. 418, 119 N. Y. Supp 852; People v. National Park Bank, 122 App. Div. 635, 107 N. Y. Supp369; In re Hastings, 120 App. Div. 756, 105 N. Y. Supp. 834; Taylor v. Citizens' Nat. Bank of Saratoga Springs, 117 App. Div. 348, 101 N. Y. Supp1039; In re Steinway, 31 App. Div – 70, 52 N. Y. Supp. 343; People vEadie, 63 Hun 320, 18 N. Y. Supp. 53 aff'd 133 N. Y. 573, 30 N. E. 1147 In re O'Neill, 47 Misc. 495, 95 N. YSupp. 964; People v. Throop, 12 Wend183. Oregon. Davidson v. Almeda Mines Co., 66 Ore. 412, 48 L. R. A. (N. S.) 847, 134 Pac. 782. Pennsylvania. Kuhbach v. Irving Cut Glass Co., 220 Pa. 427, 28 L. R. A(N. S.) 185, 69 Atl. 981; Phoenix Iron Co. v. Com., 113 Pa. St. 563, 6 Atl. 75; Com. v. Phoenix Iron Co., 105 Pa. St111, 51 Am. Rep. 184. Rhode Island. Lyon v. American Screw Co., 16 R. I. 472, 17 Atl. 61. Tennessee. Brown v. Crystal Ice Co., 122 Tenn. 239, 19 Ann. Cas. 308, 122 S. W. 84. Utah. Kimball v. Dern, 39 Utah 181, 35 L. R. A. (N. S.) 134, Ann. Cas. 1913 E 166, 116 Pac. 28. Wisconsin. State v. Thompson 's Malted Food Co., 160 Wis. 671, 152 N. W. 458; State v. Bergenthal, 72 Wis. 314, 39 N. W. 566. |