Opinion by
Thе Chester County Guarantee, Trust; and Safe Deposit Company was incorporated July 28, 1885, under the corporation act approved April 29,1874, and the supplement thereto approved Mаy 24, 1881. It was authorized among other things to receive money on deposit. It invited by advertisement in the newspapers the making of such deposits, and as an inducement to make them offered to pay five per cent interest thereon. Its published statements heralded its soundness and solvency, and the result оf its efforts in this direction was that a large number and amount of deposits were made with it. Mary A. Burnett, one оf the appellants in this ease, deposited on December 2, 1896, $1,300 with it and received a certifiсate therefor from its president. Within two months thereafter a bill in equity was filed in the court of common рleas of Chester county by Elias Blair et al. against said corporation, alleging insolvency, and praying, inter alia, for an injunction restraining it, its officers and directors, from disposing of its assets, for an investigаtion of its affairs and the appointment of a receiver. The plaintiffs
On June 8, 1897, the аppellants petitioned the court of common pleas for leave to examine the books, papers and accounts of the corporation tlien in the hands of the receivers. The purpose of the examination was to ascertain the condition of the corporation when the deposit to which the indictment relates was made. Their- petition was dismissed by the lеarned court below on tbe ground that the examination proposed by them would constitute an infringеment or denial of tbe rights of the party indicted as above stated. This ruling was obviously made on the assumption that tbe books and papers were tire property of said party, and that an examination of them by persons interested in tbe affairs of the corporation as shareholders, bondhоlders or depositors was not admissible, because it might result in the discovery of transactions having a tеndency to criminate him. But tbe books and papers of the corporation are not tbe property of tbe officers or employees, nor are they intended to protect them аgainst the consequences of the frauds they may have perpetrated in their respectivе spheres of labor or duty. An officer or employee of a corporation who is under indictment for embezzlement of its funds may not require of his employer a suppression or concealment of bis own entries in its
In accordance with the views above stated we cоnclude that the learned judge of the court below should have authorized an examination by the appellants of the books and papers of tbe corporation, for the purpose of ascertaining its condition as to solvency or insolvency on December 2, 1896.
The order dismissing the petition is reversed and the petition is reinstated, with direction to the court below to enter an order in conformity with this opinion.