Chicago & E.I. Ry. Co. v. Miller
| Citation | 309 Ill. 257,140 N.E. 823 |
| Decision Date | 04 October 1923 |
| Docket Number | No. 15333.,15333. |
| Parties | CHICAGO & E. I. RY. CO. v. MILLER. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Illinois |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Suit by the Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railway Company against Edward E. Miller, trustee. Decree for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Sangamon County; Elbert S. Smith, judge.
Edward J. Brundage, Atty. Gen., Albert D. Rodenberg, and William E. Trautmann, both of Springfield, for appellant.
George B. Gillespie, of Springfield (Homer T. Dick, of Chicago, and George M. Gillespie and Thomas E. Gillespie, both of Springfield, of counsel), for appellee.
This case concerns the validity of a charge made by the Commerce Commission for a certificate approving bonds issued by the Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railway Company and secured by mortgage of its property. Article 3 of the Public Utilities Act (Hurd's Rev. St. 1921, c. 111a) provides that the right of public utilities to issue stocks and bonds shall be exercised under such rules and regulations as the commission may prescribe, requires public utilities to submit their issues to the commission for approval, declares all stock certificates and bonds of the character involved in this proceeding void if issued without an order of the commission authorizing the same, and imposes severe penalties for unauthorized issues. Appellee, and Illinois corporation, engaged in interstate commerce, was authorized by the Interstate Commerce Commission to issue stock in the sum of $46,186,150 and mortgage bonds in the sum of $40,762,500. Because of the provisions of the PublicUtilities Act, appellee applied to the Illinois Commerce Commission for approval of the issuance of said stocks and bonds, at the same time contending that the state law was without effect because in conflict with section 20a of the Interstate Commerce Act (as added by Act Cong. Feb. 28, 1920, § 439), which requires a carrier to have its issues of stocks and bonds approved by the Interstate Commerce Commission, and which provides that:
‘The jurisdiction conferred upon the commission by this section shall be exclusive and plenary, and a carrier may issue securities and assume obligations or liabilities in accordance with the provisions of this section without securing approval other than as specified herein.’
The Commerce Commission granted the permission requested, and pursuant to section 31 of the Public Utilities Act charged a fee of $40,762.50, which fee the law requires to be paid before the securities shall be issued. Under an agreement that the state treasurer should hold the money as trustee pending the determination of the right of the state to demand and collect this fee, appellee accepted the grant as required by its terms and deposited $40,762.50 with Edward E. Miller, state treasurer, as trustee, but protested in writing against the charge, and gave notice that it paid under duress to escape statutory penalties and to prevent the revocation of the certificate. Appellee filed its bill in the circuit court of Sangamon county asking that appellant be enjoined from paying the fund into the state treasury and that he be directed to return the fund to appellee. The prayer was granted and this appeal followed.
The only objections to the decree urged by the Attorney General are that the application for authority to issue the stock and bonds was voluntarily filed with the Illinois Commerce Commission and the fee voluntarily paid to the state treasurer, and that appellee is therefore estopped from challenging the jurisdiction of the Commerce Commission. Appellee contends that the bonds could not be marketed without the approval of the state body, and that its application was made under duress of commercial necessity.
[1][2]Where a person voluntarily accepts the benefits of a statute, he will, as a general rule, thereafter be precluded from challenging its validity, if no question of public policy or public morals is involved. Grand Rapids & Indiana Railway Co. v. Osborn, 193 U. S. 17, 24 Sup. Ct. 310, 48 L. Ed. 598;Musco v. United Surety Co., 196 N. Y. 459, 90 N. E. 171,134 Am. St. Rep. 851. Before there can be an estoppel, the acceptance of the benefits of the statute must be voluntary. So where money is paid under pressure of severe statutory penalties or disastrous effect to business, it is held that the payment is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Contest of Election for Offices of Governor and Lieutenant Governor Held at General Election on November 2, 1982, In re
...is brought. In support of this action it cites Welton v. Hamilton (1931), 344 Ill. 82, 176 N.E. 333, and Chicago & Eastern Illinois Ry. Co. v. Miller (1923), 309 Ill. 257, 140 N.E. 823. Even a cursory examination of these two opinions demonstrates that they are not authority for the proposi......
-
Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Howlett, 75-1013
...Emmerson, 326 Ill. 18, 21, 156 N.E. 814; Western Cartridge Co. v. Emmerson, 335 Ill. 150, 166 N.E. 501. See Chicago & Eastern Illinois Ry. Co. v. Miller, 309 Ill. 257, 140 N.E. 823.(Ill.Rev.Stats., ch. 127, § 172 does not) impair the existing legal remedy, but supplements it by providing a ......
-
Hoffmann v. Clark
...v. Ambrose (1961), 21 Ill.2d 520, 173 N.E.2d 454; Layton v. Layton (1954), 4 Ill.2d 241, 122 N.E.2d 531; Chicago & Eastern Illinois Ry. Co. v. Miller (1923), 309 Ill. 257, 140 N.E. 823.) In Arnett v. Kennedy (1974), 416 U.S. 134, 152-53, 94 S.Ct. 1633, 1643, 40 L.Ed.2d 15, 32, the United St......
-
Benzoline Motor Fuel Co. v. Bollinger
...property is about to be seized in satisfaction of the tax, or that his back be to the wall, so to speak. Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railway Co. v. Miller, 309 Ill. 257, 140 N. E. 823. That case clearly held to the well known rule that a person who accepts the benefits of a statute is genera......