Case Name: EDDY v. BAY CIRCUIT JUDGE
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1897-11-12
Citations: 114 Mich. 668
Docket Number: 
Parties: EDDY v. BAY CIRCUIT JUDGE.
Judges: The other Justices concurred.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 114
Pages: 668–669

Head Matter:
EDDY v. BAY CIRCUIT JUDGE.
Discovery — Documents Held as Trustee — Courts — Common-Law Powers — Corporate Books.
Courts have the right, under their common-law jurisdiction, to compel one of the parties to a cause to produce for the inspection of the adverse party books and papers which he holds as trustee of the latter; as where both parties are stockholders in a corporation, and one of them has possession of the corporate books, an examination of which is essential to the other’s case.
Mandamus by John F. Eddy and others to compel Andrew C. Maxwell, circuit judge of Bay county, to set aside an order requiring relators to produce certain books and papers for inspection.
Submitted November 9, 1897.
Writ denied November 12, 1897.
C. L. Collins (A. P. Lyon, of counsel), for relators.
Pales & Kelley, for respondent.

Opinion:
Montgomery, J.
Mandamus is sought to compel the vacation of an order requiring relators to produce certain books and papers for the inspection of the attorneys of Edwin T. Bennett in a suit instituted by said Bennett against relators for malicious prosecution. It is contended that, as no rules are now in force relating to the production of books and papers (those formerly in force Cir. Ct. Rules Nos. 40 to 43 having been omitted in the revision), no such right now exists. It is true, there is no statute or rule governing the case, but, at the common law, production of books and papers can be compelled' where a trust relation exists. 1 Whart. Ev. § 743; 19 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 243. In this case the books ordered produced belonged to a corporation in which the defendants are stockholders. The custodians of these books are, in a sense, trustees of plaintiff, and, under the circumstances of the case stated, the order of the circuit judge was justified. The case is clearly distinguishable from Cummer v. Kent Circuit Judge, 38 Mich. 351, and Grow v. Bay Circuit Judge (June 2, 1894), unreported. In neither of these cases was there a trust relation.
The writ will be denied.
The other Justices concurred.