Case Name: Ex parte, The Fireman's Insurance Company
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1843-12
Citations: 6 Hill & Den. 243
Docket Number: 
Parties: Ex parte, The Fireman’s Insurance Company.
Judges: 
Reporter: Hill's Reports
Volume: 6
Pages: 243–244

Head Matter:
Ex parte, The Fireman’s Insurance Company.
Where a corporation improperly refuses to transfer stock on its books, the party in. jured has an ample remedy by action, and therefore a mandamus to compel such transfer will not lie.
P. Gansevoort, in behalf of The Fireman’s Insurance Company,
moved for a mandamus requiring. The Commercial Bank of Albany to transfer thirty shares of their capital stock to the relators. On the hank books the stock stood in the name of William Stead, who had assigned his certificate to the Fireman’s Insurance Company, and given a power to make the necessary transfer on the books of the hank. The bank had been applied to, hut refused to make the transfer.
J. Davis & M. T. Reynolds
opposed the motion, insisting, among other things, that a mandamus was not the proper remedy.

Opinion:
By the Court, Bronson, J.
When a corporation improperly refuses to transfer stock, the party injured has an ample though not a specific remedy by action ; (Kortright v. Buffalo Commercial Bank, 20 Wend. 91; 22 id. 348, S. C. in error ;) and for that reason a mandamus will not lie. (The King v. Bank of England, Doug. 524; Matter of Shipley, 10 Johns. 484.) And as a general rule, a mandamus will not he awarded where the party has an adequate remedy by action. (Boyce v. Russell, 2 Cowen, 444. The People v. Corporation of Brooklyn, 1 Wend. 318.) There are many other cases to the same effect.
Motion denied.
See Ex parte Lynch, (2 Hill 45;) Ex parte Braudlacht, (id. 367, 369;) The People ex rel. Hodgkinson v. Stevens, 5 id. 616, 629;) The People ex rel. Merritt v. Lawrence, (infra.)