Court Opinion

ID: 9546540
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:31:54.536873+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:16:35.917003
License: Public Domain

THE COURT.
In their petition for a rehearing respondents criticize our interpretation of section 358 of the Civil Code, and cite Gertridge v. State Capital Co., 129 Cal.App. 86 [18 P.2d 375], where it was held that the words “every corporation” used in section 355 applied to foreign corporations as well as to domestic. It should be noted that following that decision in 1933 the Legislature amended section 355 to make it applicable to “foreign corporations keeping any such records in this state,” thereby expressly limiting the use of the term “every corporation.” The words “such records”' refer to corporate minutes, books of account, and share register, all of which are required to be kept by domestic corporations under sections 352, 353, and 354. That these three sections do not require foreign corporations to keep such records is evident from the 1933 amendment to section 355 *833which was made applicable only to such foreign corporations as should voluntarily keep such records in this state.
It should also be noted that sections 356, 357, 358 and 359 were also amended at the same time as section 355, in 1933; and in the same bill, or chapter. Sections 356, 357 and 359 all expressly refer to foreign corporations. Section 358 does not make such reference, and it would be simple judicial legislation to add those words to the section. We must assume that the Legislature had some reason for permitting shareholders to inspect books of foreign corporations which are kept within the state; and some reason for limiting to domestic corporations the specifications required for an annual report found in section 358.
The petition is denied.
Respondents’ petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied September 23, 1943. Carter, J., voted for a hearing.