Walton v. Develing

Citations

• 61 Ill. 201

Syllabus

<p>1. Election—injunction—disobedience. Where the law authorizes an election to be called in a township to determine whether a majority are in favor of subscribing to the stock of a railroad company, and the election is called in pursuance to the requirements of the law, a court of equity has no power to restrain the officers from holding, or the people from voting, at such election. A writ of injunction issued in such a case is void, and the officers and people are not bound to obey it, as the court has no jurisdiction to issue the writ.,</p> <p>2. Injunction—contempt of court. In such a case, the defendants are not liable to be punished for a contempt of court for disobedience to such a writ. The statute confers power upon the court to punish for a contempt “for disobeying its process, rules or orders issued or made conform-ably to law.”, And the court having no power to enjoin the holding of an election, an injunction issued for the purpose is not issued conformably to law, and is void.</p> <p>3. Officers—legal duty. Where the law plainly requires an officer to perform a duty, and he is not exceeding or abusing his powers, but fairly acting within the same, and a court issues a writ to restrain him from its performance, he must discharge his duty as prescribed by the law.</p> <p>4. Equity—jurisdiction—error. Where the court has jurisdiction of the subject matter, but acts erroneously, then the person enjoined would be in contempt by disobeying the writ.</p> <p>5. Injunction—dissolution•—damages. Where a writ of injunction issued in such a case, is dissolved, il, is the duty of the court, on suggestions being filed by the defendants, to hear evidence and assess such damages as the nature of the cas,e may require. Nor does the fact that the writ of injunction was void, affect the right of the parties to recover damages. Parties have the same right to defend against a void, as a valid, writ.</p>