ful derftand. As long as a party was acting the trust company's counsel would have been within his legal rights, Graham contended very pertinent if addressed to the legislature: that his motive was immaterial. This had the law should be as contended for by the been expressly held by the Missouri Court company; but the province of the court was of Appeals in construing this particular stat not to enact law, but to enforce the law as ute. Moreover, the stock was Anderson's the legislature had declared it. The Missouri and the corporation had no right to compel legislature in its wisdom had given to the him to sell it; private property, he contended, stockholder an unlimited right to inspect and could not be condemned except for public examine the books of the corporation, ana use. Mr. Graham consented to a provision | this right was not dependent on the motive in the writ requiring Anderson to conduct his of the stockholder or the convenience of th examination ait reasonable times and in a corporation. Nor was there any power in proper manner, but he contended that the the court or the corporation to compel Mr. mere inconvenience to the corporation of Anderson to sell his stock. On all of thhaving the inspection did not destroy the questions raised by the demurrers the authorities cited by Mr. Graham were de stockholder's right under the statute. cisive and binding on the court. The de In support of these contentions Mr. Gra murrers were sustained, and unless the trust ham cited State v. St. Louis Co., 29 Mo. App. 306; State v. Sportsmen's Association, company desired to further plead the writ of 29 Mo. App. 330, and Thompson on Cor mandamus must be made peremptory. porations, sections 4421, 4422 and 4423. Counsel for the company took five days' Counsel for the trust company enlarged on further time to plead, and next day there was the confidential character of the information a conference at the bank. All of those pres contained in the company's books and con ent agreed that Anderson was levying black tended that the law ought not to aid in the mail, that if he made his examination he destruction of a legitimate business, as it would make public the information garnered would do if the petitioner's contentions were from the books. The trust officer remarked that the publication of the contents of ihe upheld. He cited a large number of authorities to trust records would mean the failure of sev show that the court will on an application eral important deals which customers were for inspection examine into the purpose for now working on. The cashier said he could which the inspection is desired, and will not recall offhand three wholesale houses which permit the process of the court to be abused would certainly be closed out by their cred by blackmailers or used to gratify the idle itors if these knew the extent of their indebt curiosity of the stockholder. Graham easily edness to the institution. Mr. Bernheisel. the president, finally remarked that the insti distinguished all these authorities by show ing that they arose in jurisdicions where the tution could better afford to lose $50,000 than common law rule prevailed and that under submit to this inspection and examination. such statutes as that of Missouri the motive The question was, what to do about it. Coun of the stockholder in seeking the inspection sel for the company advised that he could promise nothing more substantial than delay was always held to be immaterial. In sup port of this contention he cited cases from as the result of an appeal. There seemed no England, from New Jersey, from Alabama way out of it but to buy Anderson's stock, and other American jurisdictions, all of which and Bernheisel agreed to call on him for this purpose. were in point. Anderson said that the stock was a good The court announced that the argument of
