Bodman v. Lake Fork Special Drainage District

Citations

• 132 Ill. 439
• 24 N.E. 630

Syllabus

<p>1. Chancery—jurisdiction—annexing territory to drainage district— remedy to question its validity. A court of equity has no jurisdiction of ■a bill to question the validity of the annexation of land to a drainage •district, under section 42 of the drainage act of 1885. The proper remedy in such case is a quo warranto against the drainage commissioners, requiring them to show by what warrant or authority they have made •such annexation.</p> <p>2. The fact that a bill in chancery does not attack the validity of the •organization of a drainage district, but its territorial extent, only, and that it calls in question the authority of the commissioners to act, in the first instance, over the territory claimed to have been annexed, .and not ttfe validity of acts already done by them on the faith of the validity of the annexation, will not give a court of equity jurisdiction of a bill questioning the power of the commissioners to annex other lands to the district.</p> <p>3. Injunction—remedy at law. It is always a sufficient objection to the granting of an injunction that the party aggrieved has a full and adequate remedy at law.</p>