
    (June 25, 1918.)
    THOMAS W. PELHAM, Jr., Respondent, v. BIG CREEK MINING COMPANY, a Corporation, G. SCOTT ANDERSON and W. W. SMITH, Appellants.
    [173 Pac. 376.]
    APPEAL from the District Court of the First Judicial District, for Shoshone County. Hon. William W. Woods, Judge.
    Action for writ of mandate.
    Judgment for respondent affirmed.
    
    
      Featherstone & Fox, for Appellants.
    At common law the right to inspect the books and records of a corporation existed, but that right could only be exercised in good faith and for some just, useful or reasonable purpose. (7 R. C. L. 326, sec. 303; Commonwealth v. Empire Pass. By. Co., 134 Pa. St. 237, 19 Atl. 629; Heminway v. Heminway, 58 Conn. 443, 19 Atl. 766; Lyon v. American Screw Co., 16 R. I. 472, 17 Atl. 61; State v. Jessup & Moore Paper Co., 3 Boyce (Del.), 544, 90 Atl. 83; Da/uidson v. Almeda Mines Co., 66 Or. 412, 134 Pac. 782, 48 L. R. A., N. S., 847; In re De Vengoechea, 86 N. J. L. 35, 91 Atl. 314.)
    “Even where there exists a statutory right to such inspection, which, as a general rule, is regarded as practically an absolute right, the courts usually declare that it is proper to deny a mandamus in aid of it when it appears that the inspection is sought for mere curiosity or for an unlawful purpose.” (State v. German Mut. Life Ins. Co., 169 Mo. App. 354, 152 S. W. 618.)
    James A. Wayne, for Respondent.
    Whenever a right is given to a person to inspect corporate records he may exercise that right either personally or through agents. (Mitchell v. Rubber Reclaiming Go. (N. J.), 24 Atl. 407; Cincinnati Volhsblait Co. v. Hoffmeister, 62 Ohio St. 189, 78 Am. St. 707, 56 N. E. 1033, 48 L. R. A. 732; Foster v. White, 86 Ala. 467, 6 So. 88; 10 Cyc. 958; Ellsworth v. Dorwart, 95 Iowa, 708, 58 Am. St. 427, 63 N. W. 588; People ex rel. Clason v. Nassau Ferry Co., 86 Hun, 128, 33 N. Y. Supp. 244; White v. Manter, 109 Me. 408, 84 Atl. 890, 42 L. R. A., N. S., 332; Kimball v. Dern, 39 Utah, 181, Ann. Cas. 1913E, 166, 116 Pac. 28, 35 L. R. A., N. S., 134; Johnson v. Lang don, 135 Cal. 624, 87 Am. St. 156, 67 Pac. 1050; Poor v. Yarned, 28 Cal. App. 714, 153 Pac. 976; Weihenmayer v. Bitner, 88 Md. 325, 42 Atl. 245, 45 L. R. A. 446.)
   BUDGE, C. J.

This is an appeal from a judgment granting a writ of mandate compelling appellants to permit respondent and his authorized agent to examine the books and records of the appellant company and take copies thereof.

The questions raised by this appeal are identical in every respect with the questions before the court and disposed of in the case of Pfirman v. Success Mining Co., 30 Ida. 468, 166 Pac. 216. Upon the authority of that case the judgment is affirmed. Costs awarded to respondent.

Morgan and Rice, JJ., concur.  