Harkness v. Guthrie

• Decision Date: 09 February 1904
• Docket Number: 1498
• Citation: 27 Utah 248,75 P. 624
• Court: Utah Supreme Court
• Parties: HENRY O. HARKNESS, Respondent, v. J. W. GUTHRIE, A. R. HEYWOOD, HENRY CONANT, EDWARD CONANT, PATRICK HEALY, RICHARD T. HUME and O. M. RUNYON, Appellants

75 P. 624

27 Utah 248

HENRY O. HARKNESS, Respondent, v. J. W. GUTHRIE, A. R. HEYWOOD, HENRY CONANT, EDWARD CONANT, PATRICK HEALY, RICHARD T. HUME and O. M. RUNYON, Appellants

No. 1498

Supreme Court of Utah

February 9, 1904

Appeal from the Second District Court, Weber County. --Hon. H. H Rolapp, Judge.

Application by the plaintiff for mandamus against the defendants, as officers of the Commercial National Bank of Ogden, to compel them to permit plaintiff to inspect the books, accounts and loans of the bank. From an order granting the writ after hearing, the defendants appealed.

AFFIRMED.

Messrs Heywood & McCormick for appellants.

Messrs Henderson & Macmillan for respondent.

BASKIN, C. J. BARTCH and McCARTY, JJ., concur.

OPINION

BASKIN, C. J.

--On the application of the plaintiff, an alternative writ of mandamus was issued, commanding the defendants to permit the plaintiff to inspect all of the books, accounts, and loans of the Commercial National Bank of Ogden City, Utah, or show cause on the 25th day of April why they had not done so. On the day mentioned the defendants appeared, and, in answer to plaintiff's affidavit and the alternative writ, alleged "(1) that this court has no jurisdiction to hear or determine any of the matters complained of by plaintiff, or any issue that could be joined thereby; (2) that the matters complained of by plaintiff do not constitute a cause of action of any kind against these defendants, or any of them; (3) that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief prayed for in his said action, or any relief, and that the court has no jurisdiction to grant the relief which plaintiff seeks."

The material facts alleged in the affidavit of the plaintiff upon which the alternative writ was issued, and upon which at the hearing a mandatory writ was granted, are as follows: That the defendants are the officers of the bank, and that the books, accounts, and notes are in possession and under the control of defendants; that the plaintiff is a stockholder in said bank, and, as such, "on or about the 1st day of February, 1903, made a demand upon said directors, and also upon said J. W. Guthrie, as president, A. R. Heywood, as vice president and general manager of said bank, and also upon R. T. Hume, as assistant cashier of said bank, for permission to permit affiant to inspect all books, accounts, and loans of said bank, and affiant made demand for such inspection at such time or times as would not interfere with the proper conducting and operating of said bank; that each and all of said persons refused permission to affiant to inspect the books, accounts, and loans of said bank at any time or at all, and still refuses to permit such inspection; that he seeks this inspection for the purpose of ascertaining the value of his stock in said bank, and for the purpose of ascertaining whether the business affairs of said bank have been properly conducted according to law; that loans have been made to a favored few of the patrons of said bank of more than one-tenth of the capital stock to each of said patrons, which is contrary to law; and that he believes the said directors and officers of said bank have been guilty of other irregularities, which can only be stated after an inspection of the books, accounts, and loans of said bank."

The only question involved is shown by the following quotation from appellants' brief, to-wit: "At the trial the only issue presented was whether a stockholder of a national bank created and controlled by acts of Congre...