
    In the matter of Morris Shipley and others against The Mechanics’ Bank.
    NEW YORK,
    Oct. 1813.
    Awrit of mandamuswin not stance ‘of b' to the president, directors and company of an in- ..... corporated hank, commanding them to permit certain shares m the capital stock standing in the name of ©.in the hooks of the company, to be transferred on the books; C. having become insolvent and duly assigned all his estate, 8tc. including the shares, to B.; but the party is left to his ordinary remedy, by a special action on the case, to recover the value of the stock refused to be transferred.
    A M0TI0N was made for a mandamus, to be directed to the president, directors and company of the Mechanics’ Bank, commanding them to permit Morris Shipley and others, assignees of Samuel Kip, to transfer eight shares of the capital stock of the bank standing on the books of the company.
    
      It appeared, from the affidavits read, that Kip had been regusarly discharged under the insolvent act, and that Shipley and others had been duly appointed the assignees of ail his estate, real and personal, and that the shares m question were inserted ui the inventory of his estate exhibited by the insolvent. The assignees applied to the company to be permitted to transfer the shares, which the company refused, on the ground that Kip was indebted to them, in the sum of 1,474 dollars and 60 cents, for money lent, &c. and at the time, held the eight shares to the value of 25 dollars each, which they claimed the right of retaining and applying towards paying the debt due to them from Kip.
    
    
      D. B. Ogden and I. W. Brackett, in support of the motion,
    cited 1 Term Rep. 396. 404. 3 Term Rep. 651.
    
      T. A. Emmet, contra,
    
    cited Kyd on Corporations, 309 Doug. 524.
   Per Curiam.

The applicants have an adequate remedy, by a special action on the case, to recover the value of the stock, if the bank have unduly refused to transfer it. There is no need of the extraordinary remedy by mandamus, in so ordinary a case. It might as well be required in every case where trover would lie. It is nota matter of public concern, as in the case of public record* and documents; and there cannot be any necessity, or even a desire of possessing the identical shares in question. By recovering the market value of them, at the time of the demand, they can be replaced. This is not the case of a specific and favourite chattel, to which there might exist the pretimn affectionis. The case of The King v. The Bank of England (Doug. 524.) is in point, and this remedy in that case was denied.

Motion denied.  