Copper King of Ariz. v. Robert

• Decision Date: 13 July 1909
• Citation: 76 N.J.E. 251,74 A. 292
• Parties: COPPER KING OF ARIZONA v. ROBERT.
• Court: New Jersey Court of Chancery

74 A. 292

76 N.J.E. 251

COPPER KING OF ARIZONA

v. ROBERT.

Court of Chancery of New Jersey.

July 13, 1909.

Bill by the Copper King of Arizona against Daniel Robert. Pending hearing, on death of defendant, Angeline Robert, his executrix, was made defendant in his stead. She petitions to compel the production of books of the complainant for inspection. Granted.

Dungan & Reger, for petitioner. Pierre F. Cook, opposed.

WALKER, V. C. The late Daniel Robert filed a demurrer in this cause, which was overruled. He died pending decision on the demurrer, and Angeline Robert, his executrix, was made a party defendant in his stead. She claims that she has no knowledge of the facts alleged in the amended bill, and is unable to formulate a proper pleading without an examination and inspection of the books of the complainant, a corporation organized under the laws of the territory of Arizona, and which has no office in this state. She avers that on June 10, 1909, her solicitor called upon the solicitor of the complainant at his office in Jersey City, and requested from him permission to examine and inspect the books of the complainant then in his possession (not stating what books, if any, were in his possession), and that such permission was refused. She says she believes that the suit was never authorized by the corporation, but that it has been brought in its name by individuals who had no authority, and that in 1004 all the property and assets of the complainant were sold, and that thereupon it ceased to transact business. The prayer of the petition is that this court compel the complainant to bring into this state all the minute books, stock books, transfer books, books of account, including cashbooks, daybooks, journals, ledgers, and all other books, receipts, documents, and vouchers showing the business transactions of the complainant from its incorporation to the present time, and to permit the attorney and solicitor of the petitioner to make an examination thereof under such restrictions as the court may impose.

Section 44 of the corporation act is invoked as authority for the order prayed for. An examination of that section will show that it gives this court authority only to summarily order brought into this state the books of corporations organized under our laws. This being so, the section is not available on the present application. But, the petitioner further urges that irrespective of the statute, this court has the inherent power to direct the complainant to give her an inspection of its books, and cites Lawless v. Fleming, 56 N. J. Eq. 815, at page 816, 40 Atl. 638, as authority. The case bears out the petitioner's contention. Said the Court of Errors and Appeals in that case: "The right of the Court of Chancery to make such an order cannot be questioned, and has long been settled! both by established custom and well-known authority. It is one of the inherent powers of a court of equity." In Daniell's Ch. PI. & Pr. (6 Am. Ed.) it is stated that it is the practice of the Court of Chancery to allow a party to apply before the hearing of a suit, for the production of documents, relevant to the matters in question, which are in the possession or power of the opposite party; but this power to order the production of documents arises out of the general jurisdiction for the purpose of discovery, which, in all proceedings in equity, constitutes an important feature, and, in...