Case ID: minn_112/html/0530-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

STATE ex rel. WILLIAM W. HUMPHREY v. MONIDA & YELLOWSTONE STAGE COMPANY and Others.
    
    July 29,
    October 7, 1910.
    Nos. 16,738—(238, 6).
    Mandamus.
    In a proceeding to procure a writ of mandamus to allow a stockholder to examine the hooks and accounts of defendant corporation, where the order ot the lower court making the writ peremptory was affirmed on appeal, and defendant’s subsequent motion to amend the judgment, so as to prevent relator from giving to a person named any information acquired by the examination, was denied, the evidence was not sufficient to require the modification requested. [Reporter.]
    
      [Note] As to right of stockholder to inspect books of corporation, see note in 45 L.K.A. 446; and note in 20 L.B.A. (N.S.) 185.
    
      Upon remanding this ease at the former hearing [110 Minn. 193, 124 N. W. 971, 125 N. W. 676] appellant made application to the court below to open judgment and to modify the findings of fact and conclusions of law, and to amend the judgment to restrain and prevent relator, his agents and representatives, from imparting to Martin H. Albin any information received by them while examining the books, papers and records of the company. The court [Olin B. Lewis, J.,] denied the motion and defendants appealed, whereupon the relator moved, in this court, that the appeal be dismissed upon the ground that the order was not appealable, and upon the ground that the motion to open the judgment and amend was frivolous.
    Affirmed.
    
      James R. iliehey and James A. Martin, for appellants.
    
      Edward B. Graves and Martin H. Albin, for respondent.
    
      
       Reported in 127 N. W. 400, 857.
    
    
      
       April, 1910, term calendar.
    
    
      
       October, 1910, term calendar.
    
   On July 29, 1910, the following opinion was filed:

Per Curiam

(after stating the facts as above).

The court is not entirely agreed as to the proper disposition of this motion. There is some ground for the view that the appeal has been taken for the purposes of delay. On the other hand, the majority are of opinion that it is not frivolous. In view of the circumstances of the case, we have decided to entertain the appeal, and in order to avoid further delay than is necessary, it is ordered that the ease be set down for argument' on its merits, on the second day of the October, 1910, term of this court, at 9:30 o’clock a. m., and that the case be heard upon the record now made, if the parties so desire.

On October 7, 1910, the following opinion was filed:

Per Curiam.

The order appealed from is affirmed upon the ground that in denying appellant’s motion to open the judgment and to modify the findings of fact and conclusions of law, the trial court interpreted its former order to mean that the information obtained in the examination of appellant’s books was not to be kept from respondent’s attorney, Mr. Albin, although he was denied the privilege of examining the books in person.

The evidence was not sufficient to require the modification demanded.

Affirmed.

Jaggard, J., took no part.