Gambar halaman

Franchise may be ,lost by mis-user or non-user on quo warranto proceedings.

Board of Education v. Bakewell, 122 Ill. 339. A franchise may be forfeited by facts showing mis-user or non-user.

Fietsam v. Hay, 122 Ill. 293.



In general.

Abutting owner may not enjoin railroad in street where the fee is in the city.

Hill v. St. L. & N. E. Ry. Co., 243 Ill. 344.
Track elevation—when not enjoined. •

People v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 232 I11. 293. An injunction enjoining the city of Chicago from removing the passageway from a department store to the elevated platform at Van Buren and State streets, Chicago, held proper; said passageway being fairly within the terms of the license - granted by the city, and not a public menace or nuisance.

Rothschild & Co. v. City of Chicago, 227 Ill. 205. An injunction to prevent a lessor from forfeiting a lease for non-payment of rent will not lie, where it appears that the payment of rent was made with worthless notes and paper with the fraudulent collusion of the president of the lessor company.

Nat'l Brake Beam Co. v. Chicago Equip. Co., 226 Ill. 28. The name of a corporation, whether for pecuniary profit or not, is a property right, the use of which, or of a name similar as to deceive the public, will be enjoined “National Liberty League” and “National Liberty Legion" are within the rule.

People v. Rose, 225 I11. 496.

When an injunction will issue to enjoin a party to a contract in partial restraint of trade, from erecting a factory and supplying goods in violation of such contract.

Southern Fire Brick Co. v. Sand Co., 223 Ill. 616. The fact that certain persons have long used a corporate name, although not incorporated under the statute, is sufficient basis for an injunction refraining the use of such name by another company—“United States Express Company."

People v. Rose, 219 Ill. 46 (62-3). Injunction will lie to restrain city from making unjust rates for a private company.

City of Chicago v. Rogers Park Water Co., 214 I11. 212. Injunction by abutting owner does not lie to prevent erection of electric lights in streets where city owns the fee, unless unusual damage will result to such owner.

McWethy v. Aurora Elec. Light Co., 202 Ill. 218. The validity of a corporate charter cannot be raised in injunction proceedings.

Chicago Tel. Co. v. N. W. Tel. Co., 199 Ill. 324 (346). Stockholders may have injunction against the sale of all the corporate property to an illegal trust combination, and to set aside deeds effecting such a sale.

Harding v. Amer. Glucose Co., 182 Ill. 551 (625). Injunction will not lie at the suit of one party only of those injured, where no irreparable injury is shown by the bill.

C. G. Ry. Co. v. C. B. & Q. Ry. Co., 181 Ill. 605 (614). When injunction will not lie at suit of an abutting owner to restrain use of street for a hackstand.

Pennsylvania Co. v. City of Chicago, 181 Ill. 289 (296). Injunction—when not granted at suit of an individual to prevent partial obstruction of a public highway-subway on track elevation.

C. G. Ry. Co. v. C. B. & Q. R. R. Co., 181 I11. 605 (610). Injunction (at suit of a stockholder) to restrain the directors from declaring a dividend will lie only where the bill

shows the corporation insolvent, or that such a dividend will impair the capital. Not here.

Coquard v. Nat. Linseed Oil Co., 171 Ill. 480. Injunction does not lie to prevent condemnation except on ground that petitioner is abusing the right, or wrongfully taking property.

I. C. R. R. Co. v. City of Chicago, 141 Ill. 586. Injunction to prevent obstruction of highway by a toll gate -when denied.

Snell v. Buresh, 123 Ill. 151. Injunction lies at the suit of the Attorney-General to restrain a street railway company, under Horse and Dummy Act, from laying tracks in a city street without authority legally had.

Hunt v. Chicago H. & D. Ry. Co., 121 Ill. 638 (citing Hunt v.

Chicago H. & D. Ry. Co., 2 Brad. 282). Injunction will not lie to restore member of Board of Trade legally expelled.

Pitcher v. Board of Trade, 121 111. 412. In an action by a corporation against another of like name in the same business to enjoin incorporation under such name, it must be shown that the common use will injure the one first entitled to the name.

Drummond Tobacco Co. v. Randle, 114 Ill. 412. Injunction lies to restrain a corporation from acting under a void ordinance, or in excess of its lawful powers.

Atty.-General v. C. & E. R. R. Co., 112 Ill. 520 (538). Injunction lies to restrain the use of a name of a defunct corporation by third persons.

Atty.-General v. C. & E. R. R. Co., 112 Ill. 520 (538). Moving houses along street on which a street railway is operated will not be restrained by injunction.

Fort Clark Horse Ry. Co. v. Anderson, 108 III. 64. Injunction will lie to prevent voting of stock at a corporate meeting, but the bill must allege facts showing that the peti

tioner will be injured in his property rights by the vote to be taken.

Edmunds v. I. C. R. R. Co., 2 III. C. C. R. 423. Any person or corporation who may not legally own or hold stock in another corporation may be enjoined from voting stock so unlawfully held; at suit of stockholder.

Edmunds v. Ill. Cent. R. R. Co., 2 Ill. C. C. R. 423 (478). Injunction will not lie to prevent what the petitioner fears will be done to his injury, but cannot fairly show will occur.

Edmunds v. I. C. R. R. Co., 2 III. C. C. R. 423. Injunction lies against corporation at suit of State to prevent infractions of the law, criminal or otherwise—betting on


People v. Chicago F. G. Ass'n, 1 Ill. C. C. R. 108 (111). An injunction at the instance of the State lies to prevent a corporate ultra vires act—when.

People v. Chicago F. G. Ass'n, 1 Ill. C. C. R. 108. Holders of a large number of shares, are necessary parties to suit for temporary injunction against the purchase of stock by another corporation.

Taylor v. Pullman Co., 1 III. C. C. R. 24 (41). Injunction lies to prevent the recording of a certificate of incorporation whose name is so like that of an existing company as to mislead the public. The second company should not be made party defendant—why.

Elgin Nat. Watch Co. v. Eppenstein, 1 III. C. C. R. 602. Injunction lies to compel common carrier to receive and carry goods offered for transportation; to save multiplicity of suits.

Field v. Becklenberg, 1 Ill. C. C. R. 59 (66). Injunction will not lie to compel a merchant to sell to an individual. Action for damage is his remedy.

Platt v. Nat. Ass'n Retail Druggists, 1 Ill. C. C. R. 1.

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »