Hope v. Hope
| Decision Date | 22 April 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 46037,46037 |
| Parties | HOPE v. HOPE et al. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Schultz, Krinsley, Voorheis & Hedberg, Chicago (Raymond Harkrider, Chicago, of counsel), for appellant.
Louis S. Gunn and Zeamore A. Ader, Chicago, for appellee.
This is an appeal by defendant Thomas B. Hope from an interlocutory order granting a temporary injunction without notice, upon the filing of a five-hundred-dollar bond, restraining defendant Hope from withdrawing funds from certain bank accounts and from having access to safety deposit boxes. Defendant also appeals from orders entered on November 14, 1952 and November 28, 1952, permitting the opening of a safety deposit box by plaintiff for the purpose of disclosing its contents.
Plaintiff is a son of Mary E. Hope who died April 24, 1941, leaving her surviving Thomas B. Hope, her husband, Ruth L. Cochrane, a daughter, Dorothy J. Munro, a daughter, and Roland J. Hope, a grandson. August 4, 1952, Letters of Administration were issued by the Probate Court of Cook County appointing plaintiff as administrator of the Estate of Mary E. Hope, Deceased.
The complaint alleges in substance that the assets of the estate consist of three parcels of real estate in the City of Chicago and personal property the exact nature of which is unknown to plaintiff but that plaintiff is informed and believes that Thomas B. Hope has in his possession or under his control moneys, stocks, bonds, and other choses in action belonging to the estate of Mary E. Hope which he refuses to surrender to plaintiff as administrator of the estate; and that immediately upon the death of Mary E. Hope defendant took possession and charge of all the assets of the estate, collected all the rents, issues and profits from the said real estate as well as dividends from stocks and bonds, which defendant never accounted for.
The complaint further alleges on information and belief that defendant Hope has a bank account in the named defendant banks and has safety deposit vaults in the Continental Safe Deposit Vault Company and Avalon Safe Deposit Vaults, Inc.; that the moneys on deposit and the contents in the safety deposit vaults belong to the estate of Mary E. Hope; that defendant has threatened to appropriate the moneys and securities which he holds belonging to the estate to his own use; that plaintiff fears that unless the defendant Hope and other defendants are enjoined and restrained by injunction defendant Hope will carry his threat into execution and that irreparable injury will result to the beneficiaries of the estate; that defendant Hope has absented himself and that upon due and diligent inquiry plaintiff is unable to ascertain his whereabouts and therefore prays that the writ of injunction issue without notice.
In the concluding paragraph of the complaint the plaintiff also asks for an accounting and general relief.
The record shows that the complaint was filed on August 18, 1952 and on the same day a writ of injunction was issued without notice, restraining all the defendants from permitting withdrawal of the funds from the named banks by defendant Hope or from permitting him access to the safety deposit vaults or removing any of the contents.
October 20, 1952 defendant Hope entered his appearance and afterwards filed a written motion to vacate and dissolve the temporary injunction.
Defendant Hope contends that the allegations of the complaint are insufficient to sustain the injunction especially where, as here, no notice was given to any of the defendants.
The extraordinary character of the injunctive remedy requires that it be awarded only where the complaint shows on its face a clear right to the relief, and the facts relied upon to establish such right must be alleged positively and with certainty and precision. Stenzel v. Yates, 342 Ill.App. 435, 96 N.E.2d 813.
Our courts of review have repeatedly emphasized the need for great caution in granting orders for injunctions. See Skarpinski v. Veterans of Foreign Wars, 343 Ill.App. 271, 98 N.E.2d 858 and cases there cited.
In the recent case of Fox v. Fox Valley Trotting Club, Inc., 349 Ill.App. 132, 110 N.E.2d 84, this court held that allegations verified on information and belief are insufficient to support an injunction order.
Since defendant's motion to dissolve the temporary injunction directly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Parkway Bank & Trust Co. v. City of Darien
...Organization, 9 Ill.App.3d 527, 529, 292 N.E.2d 479 (1973).) Conclusion, opinion or belief is insufficient. (Hope v. Hope, 350 Ill.App. 190, 112 N.E.2d 495 (1953).) Specifically, plaintiffs allegation that it 'fear(s) that unless permanently restrained' defendant will cause suspension, modi......
-
O'Brien v. Matual
...authorities cited by the plaintiff: Peoples Gas Light & Coke Co. v. Cook Lumber Terminal Co., 1930, 256 Ill.App. 357; Hope v. Hope, 1953, 350 Ill.App. 190, 112 N.E.2d 495; Stenzel v. Yates, 1951, 342 Ill.App. 435, 96 N.E.2d 813; Jackie Cab Co. v. Chicago Park District, 1937, 366 Ill. 474, 9......
-
Shatz v. Paul
...Ill.App. 435, 440, 96 N.E.2d 813; Skarpinski v. Veterans of Foreign Wars, 343 Ill.App. 271, 274, 98 N.E.2d 858, and Hope v. Hope, 350 Ill.App. 190, 194, 112 N.E.2d 495. These cases deal with the granting of injunctive relief based solely on the complaint, no notice having been given or hear......
-
Simpkins v. Maras
... ... Our courts have uniformly held that great caution should be exercised in the granting of injunctions. Hope v. Hope, 350 Ill.App. 190, 112 N.E.2d 495. Such an order is considered an extraordinary remedy, and great caution should be exercised in its ... ...