Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1908-01-16
Supreme Court So Holds in an
Opinion Handed Down
Today.
SPENCER cLAWsoN WINS
Decision Which is of Interest Inas-
much as There Have Been a Nun
Der of Similar Cases Untried.

In an opinion handed hown by the
Supreme court this morning In the case
OF Spencer Clawson against /. A Clay
ton and the Clayton Investment COM
pany, the judgment of the district
court is affirmed, the action of the
supreme court being in Clawsons ia
vor. as was the decision of the dis
trtct court. According TO the decision,
Clawson is entitled to inspect the ac-
count books of the Clayton investment
company, in which he was a stock
holder at the time the action in the
lower court was taken. This settles
controversy among number of other
propositions of similar nature in
Utah.
Clawson, it appears from the files in
the action, applied to l. a. Clayton. as
secretary and treasurer of the COM
pany, for permission. as a stockholder
IN the concern, to inspect the COM
pany's books. This permission was de-
MED. Thereupon Clawson applied 10
the district court for an order requir-
ing the defendant to permit him TO in
spect the books. He stated in his APP
plication that although he had re-,
quested the permission. he had been
denied.
ADMITTED BY DEE'E SE.
The defendants admitted the pre-
liminary allegations of Clawson re-
specting the corporate existence of the
Clayton Investment company, but also
sought TO show that Clawson was ac-
quainted with the account books and
the methods of keeping the accounts
and that he was as competent to go
over the books as an expert, but that
they refused to permit him to inspect
the books through an agent or an NJ
countant. alleging that they were at
all times willing that he, personally,
should go over the books.
Upon a hearing before the court, the
issues were found for Clawson The
court held that the defendants unlaw-
fully denied the permission to examine
the books in the manner sought
through an agent, and further directed
that the company or its agents of ali
kinds should permit the inspection. 1t
was from this judgment that the de-
PENDANTS appealed.
In the appeal, the defendants set up
that the court erred in making the or
der permitting an inspection OF the
books of the corporation, through an
accountant, where, in this case. the
right to a personal inspection by the
stockholder is not denied"
THE OPINION.
The opinion OF the supreme court,
as written by Justice Frick and hand
ed down today, says: AT common law
the inspection OF corporate books by
the stockholders Is held to be a mat
ter OF privilege rather than right" This
doctrine was adopted by the appellants
The opinion inclines to the belief that
the stakeholder is within the provisions
OF the statutes when he demands an in
spection of the books and records at
any time. The opinion does not be-
lieve that the stockholder should be
denied to obtain the information he de-
sires to obtain in the manner he elects
to secure the information desired. The
opinion declares that 1t does not lay
with the officers or agents of the cor
poration to say what method the stock
holder should follow. From 10 eye.
95s the court quotes in support of its
position, THE stakeholder is not con-
fined to n personal inspection by him
self. but may exercise the right
through an agent. attorney, solicitor.
counselor or expert" Many cases are
cited In furtherance OF the courts
opinion. The opinion confirms the
Judgment of the lower court, Judge It.
d. Lewis. presiding, and taxes the
costs to the respondents,