Hartman

The respondent as a stockholder of the appellant. corporation made demand upon its president and secretary for permission to inspect its books and records, which was denied. He thereupon petitioned the superior court for a writ of mandate requiring submission of the same to such inspection, which, after trial, was granted. This is an appeal by the defendant corporation and its' directors, who were joined in the original proceeding.

The refusal of the books was sought to be justified by asserted ulterior motives of respondent in his desire for an examination of the corporate records and was founded upon certain provisions of section 377 of the Civil Code. It fis contended that Hartman was a public accountant and auditor in the employ of a competing rival corporation, for whom he intended to use such information as he might acquire by such inspection, to the detriment of the appellant company. Said section requires the keeping of records by corporations for profit, and further provides as follows: “Such records shall be open to the inspection of any legislative committee, board, commission, or officer of the state of California whose duty it is to inspect or examine the same, and…