Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1867-05-08
Liability Of Mining Companies TO Submit
their Books to Inspection.

February 10, before Justice sutherland
WIN. E. Johnson VS.. The Consolidated
Silver Mining, Reese River and Union
District Company, and another in this
case the complaint and afidavits set
forth that he being the owner Of some
ten mines in Nevada, valued at $780,
900 made o deed to one Thomas F.
Gould, whereby, for the nominal sum Of
one dollar, the same were conveyed, but
with the understanding that Gould
would proceed to New York and dispose
Of the same, with other mines then un-
der his control, and that he would Sc
cure to the plaintiff the purchase price
of the mines. Gould came on to New
York, and negotiated with J. A. Chez
YER and others, which resulted in the
formation Of q Silver Mining Company,
with a capital stock of SIS, 00O, 900. The
larger part Of the stock Was set apart to
Gould by way Of compensation for the
property conveyed, and other portions
were set apart to corporators OF the
company, for which, in fact, they paid
nothing. The company sold stock
enough to realize $500, 900. Gould is
receiving $4,000 salary for being Sec
rotary Of the company, aud Sl2, 900 has
been fixed as the Presidents salary, and
the salaries Of the other officers are pro-
p~ortionally large. Gould, as plaintiffs
trustee. had paid him nothing, although
promising to compensate him from time
to time, but had left for Nevada. The
company had knowledge Of his rights,
but refused the plaintiffs claim or to
disclose to him its books or contracts
with Gould. The plaintiff claims that
his interest amounts to $4,000, and
asks the Court for an order compelling
the company to allow him the inspec.
ton Of books, papers and contracts.
The Court grants the application, and
delivers the following opinion
SUTHERLAND. 1.-THE defendant, the
Consolidated Silver Mining Company,
has not demurred to the complaint, but
has answered, or intends to answer
This application is for an inspection,
etc., Of books and papers in possession
of the company, not under the revised
Statutes, but under section 1888 of the
Code. Considering this section and
and rules, IA to II of this Court, and
the decision of the General Term Of this
district, in Pinder against Seaman, 32d
Barbour, l40 lin which case the appli-
cation was on afidavits and order to
show ~cause), l do not feel authorized to
deny this application on the ground that
it should have been by petition, not
w%ithstanding the cases cited BY the
counsel foLthe company. | Am some
what embarrassed by the fact that the
plaintiffs notice of motion for the in
spection, etc., asks not only for such
inspection, etc., for the purpose or with
the view of moving for the appointment
of a Receiver Of I suppose) such stock,
property, rights and interests as the
plaintiff may discover the defendant,
Gould, may have in the company, or
which the company may or control be-
longing to Gould but also for presen.
appointment of a Receiver and an in
junction; but, upon the whole, on a re.
examination of the papers, am inclined
to think that the plaintiff is entitled to
an order for the inspection, etc., but
not as full as the n proposed.
think the company, its officers or
agents, should allow the plaintiff to in
spect at tho office of the company all
deeds, contract papers, documents ,or
entries in books, in its possession or
control, showing or relating to the trans
fers to it by the defendant, Gould, Of
tho mining property or interests men,
toned or alleged in the complaint to
have been transferred by the plaintiff to
Gould, or showing or intending to show
the consideration paid or given, or to
be paid or given, by the company for or
in consideration Of such transfer by
Gould, or showing, or tcnding'to show,
the stock or interest, If any, which
Gould has in the company, or which
the company or any other party or par
ties have or hold for the use or benefit
Of Gould. This inspection should be
permitted at q reasonable time, or at
reasonable times, to be fixed by the
order for the inspection, ETC., and the
plaintiff should have permission to take
copies or extracts of all such deeds, on
tracts, papers, entries, etc. An order
containing substantially the foregoing
provisions, or to the effect above indi-
Gated, may be drawn and settled on no
tice. E. w. Dodge, for plaintiff; W. O.
Traphagen and James T. Brady for de.
fendsnt.-Eom the Philadelphia Railroad
and Mining Register.