State ex rel. Mepham v. St. Louis Paint Mfg. Co.
| Decision Date | 06 April 1886 |
| Citation | 21 Mo.App. 526 |
| Parties | STATE OF MISSOURI EX REL. G. S. MEPHAM, Respondent, v. ST. LOUIS PAINT MANUFACTURING COMPANY ET AL., Appellants. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
APPEAL from the St. Louis Circuit Court, GEORGE W. LUBKE, Judge.
Reversed and writ quashed.
DYER, LEE & ELLIS, for the appellants: Mandamus will not lie to compel a corporation to issue stock certificates. The State ex rel. v. Rombauer, 46 Mo. 155; The State ex rel. v. Lubke, 15 Mo. App. 152.
BOYLE, ADAMS & MCKEIGHAN, for the respondent.
The relator filed his petition for a writ of mandamus against the defendant corporation, its president, and secretary to compel them to issue to him, in lieu of one certificate of stock for thirty-three shares, which he held in the capital stock of the corporation, three certificates for ten shares each, one for two shares, and one for one share. The relator states as his only reason for the application, and as his only ground for relief, that he desired to hold the stock in other and different form than in one certificate, and, therefore, presented the certificate held by him for cancellation, and demanded the issue of five certificates as above, and that the corporation and its officers declined to comply with the request. The defendants moved to quash the writ issued on this petition, by demurring to the petition. This motion was overruled and a peremptory mandamus awarded. Hence this appeal.
That mandamus will not lie to compel the transfer of shares in any corporation, as the party injured has an adequate remedy at law in such event for conversion, is conceded. The case of The State ex rel v. Rombauer (46 Mo. 155), establishes no new doctrine, but merely applies a very ancient rule thoroughly imbedded in our jurisprudence. It is claimed however that the rule is not applicable to a case where the damages can not be definitely ascertained, and that, therefore, the present case forms an exception.
Conceding, for the sake of argument, that such exceptions may exist, the further question still remains, whether this petition sufficiently states two essential requisites to a valid application for a mandamus, namely, the legal duty imposed upon the defendants to do the thing they are asked to do, and a pecuniary injury, which can not be compensated in damages, resulting to the plaintiff from their refusal to do it. The People v. Mas. Ben. Ass'n, 98 Ill. 635; Hatch v. City Bank of New Orleans, 1 Rob....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Atl. Ice & Coal Corp. v. Town Of Decatur, (No. 3261.)
...he cannot be compensated in damages. People v. Masonic Benev. Asso., 98 111. 635; Hatch v. City Bank, 1 Rob. (La.) 470; State v. St. Louis Paint Mfg. Co., 21 Mo. App. 526; Payne v. Perkerson. 56 Ga. 672; 26 Cyc. 443. In the case at bar, the petitioner having alleged that it had procured a l......
-
Payne v. Staunton.
...that the denial of the right affects his pecuniary interest. It will not be granted to settle a mere fancy question." In State v. St. Louis Paint Co. 21 Mo. App. 526, it is held that every application for this writ must state two essential requisites; first, the legal duty imposed upon the ......