Wangelin v. Goe
Citations
- 50 Ill. 459
Syllabus
<p>1. Injunctions—of affidavits on a motion to dissolve. Where a motion is made to dissolve an injunction, on the face of the bill, no answer being filed, it is not the practice in our courts to receive affidavits in support of such a motion. The motion would operate in the same way as a demurrer to the bill, and being based on matters intrinsic, appearing upon the face of the bill, no affidavits showing extraneous matter could be used.</p> <p>2. But after answer filed, denying the allegations of the bill, upon motion to dissolve the injunction, it is allowed to either party to introduce testimony to support the bill and answer; in such case the motion is to be decided upon the weight of testimony, without taking the answer as absolutely true.</p> <p>3. Demurrer in chancert-^/o)1 want of jurisdiction. When it is disclosed upon the face of a bill in chancery, that the court has no jurisdiction, because the party has an adequate remedy at law, the bill is obnoxious to a demurrer for want of equity, and it will be so adjudged on error or appeal.</p> <p>4. Injunctions—when allowable. An injunction is understood to be a preventive remedy merely, and cannot be so framed as to command a party to undo what he has done. Nor is it allowable to grant an injunction for the purpose of restraining a party from doing an act which he is alleged to have already done.</p> <p>8. In a proper case, a court of chancery will restrain, by injunction, any person who, by brute force, with weapons, is molesting a party in the peaceable and lawful possession of his property, provided the rules of law, in their application to the case, shall afford him no adequate remedy.</p> <p>6. But where a party enters by force upon premises in the possession of another, during the temporary absence of the latter, and does no act while in possession except to maintain it, an injunction will not lie at the instance of him upon whose possession the intrusion is made. The injury being already done, the writ ca
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- injunction defined as “ ‘a judicial process, by which a party is required to do a particular thing, or to refrain from doing a particular thing’ ”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Breese
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
43 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- In Re a MinorIllinois Supreme Court· 1989-03-22· cited 308×
- People v. Daily Journal of KankakeeIllinois Supreme Court· 1989-03-22· cited 52×
- Hamilton v. WilliamsAppellate Court of Illinois· 1992-11-24· cited 29×
- In Re Marriage of TetzlaffAppellate Court of Illinois· 1999-04-23· cited 28×
- Dunne v. County of Rock IslandIllinois Supreme Court· 1916-04-20· cited 19×
- Jfs v. AbmjAppellate Court of Illinois· 1983-12-12· cited 18×
- Doe v. DoeAppellate Court of Illinois· 1996-07-31· cited 16×
- Puleo v. McGladrey & PullenAppellate Court of Illinois· 2000-08-21· cited 16×
- Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co. v. TaylorIllinois Supreme Court· 1890-10-31· cited 16×
- Fisher v. Board of TradeIllinois Supreme Court· 1875-09-15· cited 15×
- Santella v. KoltonAppellate Court of Illinois· 2009-07-31· cited 14×
- Estate of Ohlman v. OhlmanAppellate Court of Illinois· 1994-02-22· cited 14×
- Hartz v. Brehm Preparatory School, Inc.Appellate Court of Illinois· 2021-02-18· cited 14×
- Deisenroth v. DodgeAppellate Court of Illinois· 1953-04-13· cited 11×
- Long v. BarkerIllinois Supreme Court· 1877-06-15· cited 11×
- Pacific Railroad v. LeavenworthU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Kansas· 1871-07-01· cited 11×
- Bloomington Urological Associates v. ScagliaAppellate Court of Illinois· 1997-10-21· cited 9×
- Doe No. 1 v. Northwestern Memorial HospitalAppellate Court of Illinois· 2014-11-17· cited 9×
- Levy v. RosenAppellate Court of Illinois· 1930-07-02· cited 9×
- Crown Building Corp. v. Monroe Amusement Corp.Appellate Court of Illinois· 1945-06-29· cited 8×
Cites
6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- People ex rel. Messler v. SimonsonMichigan Supreme Court· 1862-06-07· cited 31×
- Dunning v. City of AuroraIllinois Supreme Court· 1866-04-15· cited 22×
- Winkler v. WinklerIllinois Supreme Court· 1866-04-15· cited 16×
- Goodnough v. SheppardIllinois Supreme Court· 1862-04-15· cited 13×
- Roach v. ChapinIllinois Supreme Court· 1862-01-15· cited 11×
- Pfeltz v. PfeltzCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1859-07-29· cited 5×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.