Sage v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co.
Cases that cite this one
18 later published cases cite this decision.
- In re New York Central Railroad (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1931)
- St. Stephen Church Cases (New York Court of Common Pleas 1890)
- People ex rel. McDonald v. U. S. Mercantile Rep, Co. (New York Supreme Court 1888)
- Steckler v. Pennroad Corp. (3d Cir. 1943)
- Northern Central Railway Co. v. Fidelity Trust Co. (Md. 1927)
- People v. American Press Ass'n (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1912)
- Kimball v. Dern (Utah 1911)
- Venner v. Chicago City Railway Co. (Ill. 1910)
- Smith v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. (Ind. 1907)
- In re the Appraisal, Under the Transfer Tax Act, of the Estate of Cooley (N.Y. 1906)
- In re Cooley's Estate (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1906)
- In re Pierson (New York Supreme Court 1899)
- People ex rel. Hoffman v. Tedcastle (Superior Court of New York 1895)
- People ex rel. Hoffman v. Tedcastle (The Superior Court of New York City 1895)
- People ex rel. New York Underground Railway Co. v. Newton (N.Y. 1891)
- Babcock v. Schuylkill & Lehigh Valley Railway Co. (New York Supreme Court 1890)
- Lyon v. American Screw Company (R.I. 1889)
- Stettauer v. New York & Scranton Construction Co. (New Jersey Court of Chancery 1886)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
We are of the opinion that the Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Bailway Co. is a domestic and not a foreign corporation, and hence that chap. 165, S. L. of 1842, has no application to this case, but to the transfer agents of such corporations. Being subject to the duties and obligations of the laws relating to domestic corporations, it comes within the provisions of the Bevised Statutes, vol. 1, Edm. ed., 558, which contains special provisions in regard to the *223 books containing the names of stockholders and authorizes an examination of the same within thirty days previous to any election of directors, etc.
We concur with the opinion of the General Term, that this statute does not deprive the stockholder of a corporation of the right to examine its transfer books for proper purposes and on proper occasions at other times, and a proceeding by mandamus may be invoked for the purpose of enforcing such right. But the exercise of the power of the court in granting a mandamus is discretionary, and when the General Term has held that such discretion has been properly exercised in refusing the writ, we are not at liberty to interfere with their decision. It has repeatedly been held in kindred cases by this court, that no appeal lies from such an order of the General Term, and such being the fact, and as the relator had no statutory rights to the writ, the appeal must be dismissed with costs.
All concur, except Rapallo, J., taking no part.
Appeal dismissed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.