Cope v. the Dist. Fair Ass'n of Flora
| Decision Date | 21 June 1881 |
| Citation | 39 Am.Rep. 30,99 Ill. 489,1881 WL 10570 |
| Parties | RUFUS COPEv.THE DISTRICT FAIR ASSOCIATION OF FLORA, ILLINOIS. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Appellate Court for the Fourth District;--heard in that court on appeal from the Circuit Court of Clay county.Mr. RUFUS COPE, pro se.
The right to an injunction is not confined to cases where necessary to prevent pecuniary loss. Where there is no remedy at law, an injunction will always issue to prevent the violation of legal rights, and this whether such violation be attended with pecuniary loss or not.
Stockholders have an interest, not only in the property of the corporation, but also in its offices, which are created for their use, and are in the nature of a trust. Corporations will be restrained from exceeding the legitimate scope of their authority. Attorney General v. Grant, 1 Dr. and Sn. 154; Coleman v. Eastman, 10 Beav. 1; Solomon v. Laing, 12 Id. 339.
The amount of interest of a shareholder is not considered. McDonnell v. Grand, etc. 3 Ir. Ch. 578.
A single stockholder is entitled to aid in equity, though all the other members are opposed to him. Kean v. Johnson, 1 Stockt. 401; Mozley v. Alston, 1 Ph. 798; Simpson v. Westminster, 8 H. L. 717; Breman v. Rufford, 1 Sim. (N. S.) 564; Ernest v. Nichols, 6 H. L. 401; Ex parte Morgan, 1 Mac. & G. 236.
It is a general rule that courts of equity will enjoin, on behalf of stockholders of an incorporated company, acts contrary to law, or wrongful diversion of funds. Kean v. Johnson, 1 Stockt. 401; Manderson v. Commercial, etc.28 Pa. St. 379; Sears v. Hotchkiss, 25 Conn. 171; Bragshaw v. Eastern, 7 Hare, 11; Central v. Collins, 40 Geo. 582; Smith v. Bangs, 15 Ill. 399.
The fact that a remedy at law exists, is no reason for refusing an injunction. 25 Conn. 171; 43 Ill. 81.
Injunctions are granted to restain the improper use of church property, because of the invasion of the rights of stockholders, and this without regard to pecuniary damage. Trustees First Con. Church v. Stewart, 43 Ill. 81; Perry v. McLean, 22 Ind. 440; Kean v. Johnson, 9 N. J. Eq. (1 Stockt.) 401. It is insisted that there is a remedy by criminal prosecutions; but we answer, first, that it appears from the bill that this remedy is impracticable; second, it is not the law that a party must look to the criminal law for the enforcement of civil rights.
Mr. GERSHOM A. HOFF, for the appellee:
There is no allegation of loss or damage to complainant, either irreparable, actual or nominal, by reason of the acts complained of, nor that such acts interfered with the annual exhibitions of the defendant.
If the complainant has suffered any loss by the illegal acts of the officers and managers, he has a full remedy against them at law. The principal is not bound by the unauthorized and illegal act of the agent.
A license is but a permit. The license complained of here was such a permit, on account of its character, as to have no legal force or effect, and in nowise protected the parties receiving it or enlarged their rights under the law, or in any way protected them from its penalties for a violation thereof.
No person can legally sell another a privilege to do a criminal act; therefore, if the officers and managers of defendant did sell gamblers such privileges, and then protected them from the officers of the law, as alleged, then such officers and managers were particeps criminis with the gamblers.
The subject matter of the jurisdiction of equity being the protection of private property and of civil rights, courts of equity will not interfere for the punishment or prevention of merely criminal or immoral acts. High on Inj. sec 23. Where there is an ample remedy by proceedings at law, the offence being damnum absque injuria, courts of equity will not interfere. Sparhawk v. Union, etc. Co.54 Pa. St. 401. We take it that this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pompano Horse Club, Inc. v. State
... ... See, ... also, Eilenbecker v. Dist. Court of Plymouth County, ... 134 U.S. 31, 10 S.Ct. 424, ... See, ... also, the very recent case, Utah State Fair Ass'n v ... Green (Utah) 249 P. 1016 ... It ... People v. Condon, 102 Ill.App. 449; ... Cope v. Fair Association of Flora, 99 Ill. 489, 39 ... Am ... ...
-
United States Express Co. v. State
...Conn. 538; 63 Me. 269. The court had no jurisdiction to enter the decree against appellant. 14 Mo.App. 413; 2 Johns. Ch. 371; 78 Ill. 237; 99 Ill. 489; 102 Ill.App. 449; 158 U.S. 564; Ark. 117; 155 Ind. 526; 2 Minn. 61; 7 Miss. 602; 124 U.S. 200; 58 P. 604; 37 S.W. 478; 31 S.E. 745; 56 F. 6......
-
State v. Vaughan
... ... equitable cognizance." Cope v. Fair ... Assn., 99 Ill. 489. In People v ... Condon, ... ...
-
Harding v. American Glucose Co.
...will work no injury to the stockholder filing the bill. In support of this contention, counsel rely mainly upon the cases of Cope v. Association, 99 Ill. 489, and Coquard v. Oil Co., 171 Ill. 480, 49 N. E. 563. In Cope v. Association, supra, the bill was filed by a stockholder in an incorpo......