Peoria & Pekin Union Railway Co. v. Peoria & Farmington Railway Co.

Citations

• 105 Ill. 110
• 1882 Ill. LEXIS 243

Syllabus

<p>1. Appeal—lies directly to this court in proceeding to condemn. By section 12 of the Eminent Domain act, an appeal is expressly given directly to this court from the judgment of the trial court, in a proceeding to condemn land for right of way, and there is nothing in the Practice act that takes away this right.</p> <p>2. Corporate existence—pro of thereof in a collateral proceeding. The general rule is, that in all collateral proceedings at the suit of an alleged corporation, the introduction of the charter of the company, and proof that the company is exercising the franchises granted, afford sufficient evidence upon the question of the corporate existence of the company. In such case it is. not required to show that the company is a corporation de jure.,</p> <p>3. Same—what is a collateral proceeding. A proceeding for the condemnation of the right of way for a railroad is a collateral proceeding, so far as concerns the question of the corporate existence of the company seeking the condemnation.</p> <p>4. Same—former decision. In this case a railroad company sought to condemn a right of way, under the Eminent Domain act. As proof of its corporate existence the company gave in evidence the special charter under which it claimed to have been organized, and also gave evidence of user of the franchises granted by the charter. This was held sufficient to authorize the proceeding.</p> <p>5. But it was contended the case of Allman v. Havana, Rantoul and Eastern R. R. Co. 88 111. 521, holds a different doctrine; that in that ease it was held, in a suit on a subscription for stock to the company, the defendant could interpose as a defence that the requisite amount of stock had not been subscribed to authorize the company to collect assessments on subscriptions. That decision was under the general Railroad law, and this is under a special charter. It was considered, if this'does not distinguish that case from this, then the former must be limited to cases arising under t