Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

or franchise, and also give judgment in favor of the relator for the costs of the prosecution: Provided, That instead of judgment of ouster from a franchise for an abuse thereof, unless the court is of the opinion that the public good demands such judgment, the court may fine the person or corporation found guilty in any sum not exceeding $25,000 for each offense. Whenever judgment is given any defendant in such information, the person or corporation to whom judgment is given shall recover costs against the relator. (R. S. 1845, p. 430, § 2.

7. Appeal—Error.) § 7. Appeals and writs of error may be taken and prosecuted in the same manner and upon the same terms, and with like effect as in other civil cases. (R. S. 1845, p. 430, § 4.

When proper remedy.

Quo warranto is a proper procedure against a corporation whose license or franchise has been terminated by the city, but which continues to exercise such license, and to determine the question of forfeiture by breach of conditions in such case.

People v. Cent. Union Tel. Co., 232 I11. 260.

Quo warranto is a proper proceeding to forfeit the franchise of a telephone company because it has increased rates as allowed by its grant, or misused its license in any manner.

People v. Chicago Tel. Co., 220 I11. 238.

Quo warranto by Attorney-General or State's Attorney is the proper remedy to prevent the illegal use of street by elevated railroad.

Doane v. Lake St. “L” R. R. Co., 165 I11. 510 (518).

Quo warranto lies to question whether a combination promotes or is a monopoly-practice.

Distilling Co. v. People, 156 Ill. 448 (482). Quo warranto is proper remedy to question election of director when bondholders were allowed to vote.

Durkee v. People, 155 III. 354.

Quo warranto to oust certain persons from acting as an insurance corporation because not legally incorporated. (Ch. 112, Quo Warranto.)

People v. Healy, 230 III. 280.

Any person wrongfully usurping an office in a private corporation may be removed by quo warranto on application by any interested party through the State's Attorney of the proper county, but where the usurpation is of a public office the beginning of quo warranto proceedings is entirely discretionary with the State's Attorney. In the first instance he may be compelled to act on a proper showing; in the second he may not be compelled.

People v. Healy, 230 III. 280. One claiming to hold an office of a corporation but not lawfully elected thereto may be ousted by proceedings in quo warranto in the name of the State's Attorney of the proper county, and if the State's Attorney refuses to file a petition before the court for leave to begin quo warranto proceedings where proper showing is made to him by affidavits, he may be compelled to do so by writ of mandamus.

People v. Healy, 230 Ill. 280. Sec. 1 of Chap. 112 (Hurds, 1905) Quo Warranto Act affords a proper remedy for the removal of a person unlawfully holding any office in a corporation organized under the laws of Illinois.

People v. Healy, 230 I11. 280. Quo warranto is the only proper method by which to question the legality of a corporation. It cannot be attacked in a collateral proceeding.

Eddleman v. Union Co. T. & P. Co., 217 Ill. 409. Quo warranto is a proper remedy to test constitutionality of statute by virtue of which, it is claimed, a corporation is usurping power.

People v. People's Gas Light Co., 205 Ill. 482.

Quo warranto is the proper and only proceedings to determine whether a corporation is exceeding its charter powers.

Chicago Gen'l Ry. Co. v. C. C. Ry. Co., 186 Ill. 219. Quo warranto is a proper method by which to question the right of a corporation to hold real estate, or to exercise any power or do any act, that it may be doing.

People v. Pullman Car Co., 175 Ill. 125 (160). The public are not estopped by delay in bringing quo warranto, to question usurpation of power by a corporation.

People v. Pullman Car Co., 175 Ill. 125 (164). Quo warranto lies to forfeit its charter when a corporation passes by-laws and does acts tending to restrict trade and competition and fetter individuals.

People v. Live Stock Ex., 170 III. 556. Quo warranto by the Attorney-General or a State's Attorney is the only proper remedy to question the acts and authority of a corporation.

T. H. & I. R. R. Co. v. P. & P. U. Ry. Co., 167 Ill. 296. Quo warranto lies to forfeit charter of an alleged medical university conferring degrees—when.

Ill. Health Univ. v. People, 166 III. 171. Quo warranto to forfeit corporate charter-action in corporate name admits corporate existence.

North & S. Rolling Stock Co. v. People, 147 Ill. 234 (245).

Pleadings in

Discussion of what are proper pleadings in an action of quo warranto against a telephone company continuing to occupy street after its franchise is repealed.

People v. Cent. Union Tel. Co., 232 III. 260. Quo warranto against a corporation in its corporate name admits its existence-pleadings.

People v. Central Union Tel. Co., 192 III. 307.

RAILROAD CORPORATIONS.

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AS TO.
STATUTES AS TO

INCORPORATION AND CONSTRUCTION OF.
REQUIRING OFFICE IN ILLINOIS.
As to BORROWING MONEY-MORTGAGES.
CONSOLIDATION OF.
CONTRACTS, SALES AND LEASES.
OPERATION OF.
RATE OF FARE.
EXTORTION AND DISCRIMINATION BY.
SAFETY OF PASSENGERS, EMPLOYES AND THE PUBLIC.
LIENS UPON RAILROADS.
STOCK OWNED BY MANUFACTURING COMPANIES.
RE-Locating Right OF WAY.
PUNISHING STEALING OF JOURNAL BEARINGS.
REDEMPTION OF DRAWBACK Checks.
FIRES CAUSED BY LOCOMOTIVES.
RESIDENCE OF DIRECTORS.
UNION DEPOT COMPANIES.
REPORT TO RAILROAD AND WAREHOUSE COMMISSION.
ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. R. Co.

LAW AS TO.

ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION.
RAILROAD COMPANY DEFINED.

Right Of Way-RULES AS TO.
RightS AND DUTIES OF.

IN GENERAL,
To FeNCE TRACKS.

As to CULVERTS AND BRIDGES.
BONDS OF.
CONTRACTS OF.
CONTROL OF BY CITIES AND COURTS,
MANDAMUS AGAINST.
INJUNCTION.
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT OF.

TaxATION OF.

PROCEDURE.
RAILROAD TRACK.

By WHOM ASSESSED.
SERVICE ON.
ACTIONS AGAINST.
STATUTES-CONSTRUCTION OF.
RAILROAD AND WAREHOUSE COMMISSION.
MISCELLANEOUS RULES AS TO.

Constitutional provisions.

§ 9. Every railroad corporation organized or doing business in this State, under the laws or authority thereof, shall have and maintain a public office or place in this State for the transaction of its business, where transfers of stock shall be made, and in which shall be kept, for public inspection, books, in which shall be recorded the amount of the capital stock subscribed, and by whom; the names of the owners of its stock, and the amounts owned by them respectively; the amount of stock paid in, and by whom; the transfer of said stock; the amount of its assets and liabilities, and the names and place of residence of its officers. The directors of every railroad corporation shall, annually, make a report, under oath, to the Auditor of public Accounts, or some officer to be designated by law, of all their acts and doings, which report shall include such matters relating to railroads as may be prescribed by law. And the General Assembly shall pass laws enforcing by suitable penalties the provisions of this section.

§ 10. The rolling stock and all other movable property belonging to any railroad company or corporation in this State, shall be considered personal property, and shall be liable to execution and sale in the same manner as the personal property of individuals, and the General Assembly shall pass no law exempting any such property from execution and sale.

§ 11. No railroad corporation shall consolidate its stock, property or franchises with any other railroad corporation owning a parallel or competing line; and in no case shall any consolidation take place, except upon public notice given, or at least sixty days, to all stockholders, in such manner as may be provided by law. The majority of directors of any railroad corporation, now incorporated or hereafter to be incorporated by the laws of this State, shall be citizens and residents of this State.

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »