Case Name: John E. Baumrucker, Appellee, v. Fred D. Jones et al., Appellants
Court: Illinois Appellate Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 1912-10-01
Citations: 172 Ill. App. 188
Docket Number: Gen. No. 17,404
Parties: John E. Baumrucker, Appellee, v. Fred D. Jones et al., Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Appellate Court Reports
Volume: 172
Pages: 188–189

Head Matter:
John E. Baumrucker, Appellee, v. Fred D. Jones et al., Appellants.
Gen. No. 17,404.
1. Appeal and error — reservation of grounds. No question is presented for review on an appeal from the finding of a court without a jury where the appellant did not submit propositions of law to be held by the court in accordance with Practice Act, § 61 (former act, § 42).
2. Corporations — right of stockholder to inspect hooks. Under statutes conferring on a stockholder an unlimited right to inspect the books and' papers of a corporation, it is no ground for a refusal to permit an inspection that the stockholder is influenced by improper motives or purposes in desiring to .procure the information. ¿
3. Corporations — right of stockholder to inspect hooks. A stockholder is not precluded from having an inspection of corporate books and records by the fact that he had negotiated with an officer of thd corporation for the sale of his shares and that such officer had instituted proceedings in chancery for the specific performance of an alleged contract of sale.
Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. William N. McSurelv, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1911.
Affirmed.
Opinion filed October 1, 1912.
J. N. Heldman and Simon La Grou, for appellants.
McEwen, Weissenback, Shrimski & Meloan, for appellee; James S. McClellan, of counsel.

Opinion:
Mr. Presiding Justice Clark
delivered the opinion of the court.
A writ of mandamus was awarded appellee, as petitioner, against appellants, as respondents, commanding that the petitioner he permitted to examine the records and hooks of the Fred D. Jones Co., a corporation. There was a trial before the court without a jury. The appellant did not submit propositions of law to be held by the court, in accordance with Section 61 of the Practice Act (Section 42 of the former act). It has uniformly been, held that where-such propositions are not submitted ho question of law is presented to the court on appeal for review, the ultimate facts found by the court from the evidence not having been set forth in the bill of exceptions. Hobbs v. Ferguson's Estate, 100 Ill. 232. The statute of this state gives an unlimited right to stockholders to inspect the books and papers of the corporation. It is no defense that he is influenced by improper motives or purposes to procure the information. Venner v. Chicago City Ry. Co., 246 Ill. 173. The record shows conclusively that title to 100 shares of stock was in Baumrucker at the time of filing his petition. It is true there- is some evidence tending to show that negotiations had been had between bim and Mr. Jones, an officer of the defendant corporation, under which Jones was to acquire the stock, and that Jones had instituted proceedings in chancery seeking the specific performance of the alleged contract. These facts, however, present no defense to the petition for mandamus.
Affirmed.