Darst v. People of State
| Decision Date | 30 September 1871 |
| Parties | JAMES P. DARST et al.v.THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
WRIT OF ERROR to the Circuit Court of Woodford County; the Hon. S. L. RICHMOND, Judge, presiding.
This was a proceeding by attachment for contempt of court, against J. William Clark, James P. Darst, and others, in refusing to obey an injunction writ ordered by William G. Randall, master in chancery of Woodford County, Illinois, prohibiting Jefferson A. Davis, supervisor of the town of Olio, in Woodford County, Daniel R. Meek, assessor, Benjamin L. Moore, collector, and Frank M. Hoyt, clerk of said town, and their successors in office, and all other persons in said town from holding an election, or acting as judges of an election, on the 14th day of June, 1870, for the purpose of voting “for or against” a subscription to the capital stock of the Chicago?? Pekin & Southwestern Railroad Company, to the amount of $50,000, and from making any subscription on behalf of said town of Olio, by virtue of such election, and from issuing bonds of said township to pay said subscription.
The plaintiffs in error were fined twenty dollars each, and judgment was rendered against them for that amount and costs. To reverse this judgment they now bring the record to this court.
Messrs. WORTHINGTON & PUTERBAUGH, for the plaintiffs in error.
Appellants were fined for contempt of court for refusing to obey a writ of injunction commanding them, as public officers, not to hold an election.
The case is identical, in the facts, with the case of Walton et al. v. Develing et al., 61 Ill. 201. The principles and reasoning in that case apply to this.
The writ of injunction was void, and a party can not disobey a void writ.
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
Judgment reversed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Board of Revenue of Covington County v. Merrill
...Ferry Bridge, 16 W.Va. 877; State v. Milligan, 3 Wash. 152, 28 P. 369; In re Pierce, 44 Wis. 411; Walton v. Develing, 61 Ill. 204; Darst v. People, 62 Ill. 306; v. People, 150 Ill. 408, 23 N.E. 387, 37 N.E. 1004, 41 Am.St.Rep. 375; Dickey v. Reed, 78 Ill. 261; Munday v. Vail, 34 N.J.Law, 41......
-
McCann v. Randall
... ... Haines v. Haines, 35 Mich. 138; Perry v ... Mitchell, 5 Denio, 537; People v. O'Neil, ... 47 Cal. 109; Brown v. Moore, 61 Cal. 432; In re ... Morton, 10 Mich. 208; ... Martyn, Vent. 1; Ex parte Grace, 12 Iowa, ... 208; Walton v. Develing, 61 Ill. 201; Darst v ... People, 62 Ill. 306; Lewis v. Waite, 70 Ill ... 25; Dickey v. Reed, 78 Ill. 261; ... court has no lawful authority to punish the disobedience of ... it as a contempt. State v. Bridge Co., 18 How. 421; ... Weeks v. Smith, 3 Abb.Pr. 211; U.S. v ... Stanwood, 13 ... ...
-
Blackman v. Stone, 2238.
...v. Epley, 1 Colo.App. 199, 28 P. 89; Pagosa Springs v. People, 23 Colo.App. 479, 130 P. 618; Walton v. Develing, 61 Ill. 201; Darst v. People, 62 Ill. 306; Harris v. Schryock, 82 Ill. 119; Payne v. Emmerson, 290 Ill. 490, 125 N.E. 329; Lamb v. Burlington R. Co., 39 Iowa, 333; Duggan v. Empo......
-
McCann v. Randall
...208;People v. Sturtevant, 9 N.Y. 263; Sparks v. Martyn, Vent. 1; Ex parte Grace, 12 Iowa, 208;Walton v. Develing, 61 Ill. 201;Darst v. People, 62 Ill. 306;Lewis v. Waite, 70 Ill. 25;Dickey v. Reed, 78 Ill. 261; Frewin v. Lewis, 4 Mylne & C. 249; Mooers v. Smedley, 6 Johns.Ch. 28; 1 High, In......