Chicago v. City of Ottawa

• Decision Date: 16 January 1894
• Citation: 148 Ill. 397,36 N.E. 85
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Parties: CHICAGO, B. & Q. R. CO. v. CITY OF OTTAWA.

148 Ill. 397

36 N.E. 85

CHICAGO, B. & Q. R. CO.

v.CITY OF OTTAWA.¹

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Jan. 16, 1894.

Appeal from appellate court, second district; Charles Blanchard, Judge.

Bill by the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company against the city of Ottawa. The bill was dismissed on demurrer, and this decision was affirmed by the appellate court. Complainant appeals. Affirmed.

Statement by the Court:

This was a bill in equity, brought by the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company against the city of Ottawa to enjoin the prosecution of certain suits brought by the city against it for the violation of an alleged ordinance requiring the railroad company to erect gates at certain street crossings for the purpose of protecting persons crossing the railroad track from being injured by passing trains. It was alleged in the bill that the ordinance was void. That it was beyond the power of the city of Ottawa to pass such an ordinance. That on the 24th day of November, 1891, the city brought an action against the railroad company before a justice of the peace in the city of Ottawa for a violation of the ordinance. That a fine of 200 was imposed by the justice against the railroad company. That about ten days thereafter another prosecution was brought before said justice, and a like judgment rendered, from which judgments orator prosecuted an appeal to the circuit court of said county, where both are pending and undetermined. That on the 14th day of March, 1892, another suit was brought against said orator by said city before a justice, and a judgment rendered for $100 and costs of suit; and on the same day that said judgment was rendered, viz. on the 21st day of March, 1892, the city of Ottawa caused to be issued against orator ten other summonses, commanding orator to appear before a justice of the peace each day for the ten days next ensuing after the 26th day of March, 1892, Sundays excepted, to answer the complaint of the city of Ottawa for a failure to pay a certain demand in each case, not exceeding $200. All of said thirteen suits so brought against your orator by the city were brought to recover a separate penalty for so many supposed violations of supposed ordinances of said city for a failure of orator to erect in its streets at the crossings of said railroad certain obstructions denominated ‘gates.’ And the said city officers-mayor and aldermen-threaten to bring other suits for the same alleged offenses, and to prosecute orator every ten days until orator will be able to obtain a final decision, which will determine the right of the city to require of your orator other protection than flagmen, or shall erect gates at such crossings. Prayer of the bill is that the city be made defendant, and summoned, etc.; answer under oath waived; that upon final hearing defendant be restrained from prosecuting under said ordinance so far as relates to the erection of gates and to maintain same to the satisfaction of the superintendent of streets; for a temporary writ of injunction restraining the city from prosecuting suits against complainant, excepting the two suits now pending in the circuit court; and for other general relief. The defendant interposed a demurrer to the bill, and for cause of demurrer alleged that a court of chancery has no jurisdiction to enjoin the prosecution of suits for the violation of a city ordinance, and that, when ordinances have been enacted by the proper authorities, a court of equity will not interfere by injunction to restrain their enforcement in the appropriate courts upon the ground that such ordinances are alleged to be illegal, or because of alleged innocence of the party charged; nor will that court enjoin such proceedings for the purpose of determining the validity of an ordinance in a court of law where there is an adequate remedy for an injury sustained. The court...