
    Paul M. Pelletreau, Respondent, v. The Greene Consolidated Gold Mining Company, Appellant.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term,
    January, 1906.)
    Foreign corporations — Duties and liabilities — Refusal to permit inspection of stock book — Sufficiency of proof.
    Constitutional law — Privileges and immunities of citizens of several States.
    The plaintiff, iin an action to recover the penalty provided (Stock Corporation Law, § 53) for refusal of a foreign corporation to permit an inspection of its stock book, makes out a prima facie case when he shows that he went, during business hours, to the office of the company where its stock hook is required by law to be kept and made a demand upon the person apparently in charge that an inspection be permitted; he is not required to prove, in the first instance, that such person bore any particular relation to the company.
    That a domestic corporation for refusal to exhibit its stock book is subject, under section 29 of the Stock Corporation Law, to the payment of fifty dollars and all damages resulting to the stockholder therefrom, while, under section 53 of said statute, a foreign corporation, for the same refusal, is subject to the payment of two hundred and fifty dollars, nothing being said about any other damages, does not render the latter provision unconstitutional as imposing a more severe penalty for the same offense. Semble in the latter case the damages are liquidated by the statute while in the former case they are left unliquidated.
    Appeal by tbe defendant from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, rendered in the Municipal Court of the city of ÜSTew York, eleventh district, borough of Manhattan;
    M. E. Harby, for appellant.
    David J. Wagner, for respondent.
   Scott, J.

This is an action for statutory damages for the refusal of defendant, a foreign corporation, to permit plaintiff, a stockholder, to inspect its stock-book. It was shown that plaintiff called at defendant’s office in this city and saw a person who stated that he was, and who appeared to be, in charge of the office and who further stated that the defendant’s books were kept there, but refused to let plaintiff inspect them. It was conceded that the office at which plaintiff called was that of defendant and we think that, under the circumstances, the plaintiff made out a prima facie case of refusal. The statute does not specify of whom the demand for an inspection of the stock-book shall be made, further than to provide that it shall be kept in the office of the company and shall be open daily, during business hours, for inspection by those authorized to inspect. A stockholder has done all that he can do when he has gone to the office and made demand upon the person apparently in charge that an inspection be permitted. It would be to nullify the law to require him to go further and prove, in the first instance, that the individual to whom he made application bore any particular relation to the company. If, for any reason, the person thus applied to did not represent the company, it would be easy for the defendant to show that fact. It is argued that section 53 of the Stock Corporation Law (L. 1890, chap. 564, as amd. L. 1897, chap. 384) is unconstitutional because it imposes a more severe penalty upon a foreign corporation than is imposed for the same offense upon a domestic corporation. This contention seems to be untenable. Section 29 of the Stock Corporation Law subjects a domestic corporation, for a refusal to exhibit the stock-book, to the payment of fifty dollars and all damages resulting to him (the stockholder) therefrom.” Section 53, for the same refusal, subjects a foreign corporation to the payment of one sum of $250, and says nothing about any other damages. The effect of this seems to me to be merely that, in the case of a domestic corporation, the damages are left unliquidated; while, in the case of a foreign corporation, they are liquidated by the statute; but, in both cases, the provision is for the recovery of damages. Cox v. Island Mining Co., 65 App. Div. 514.

Blanchard and Dowling, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.  