People ex rel. Oliver v. Stevenson
| Decision Date | 05 April 1916 |
| Docket Number | No. 10429.,10429. |
| Citation | 111 N.E. 1018,272 Ill. 325 |
| Parties | PEOPLE ex rel. OLIVER et al. v. STEVENSON, Secretary of State. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Original petition for mandamus by the People, on relation of Frederick S. Oliver and others, against Lewis G. Stevenson, Secretary of State. Demurrer to petition sustained, and writ denied.
Edward P. Vail, John L. Vette, Donald P. Vail, John L. Pearson, and Walter D. Herrick, all of Chicago, for relators.
P. J. Lucey, Atty. Gen., and Thomas E. Dempcy, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
This is an original petition for mandamus, filed in this court by Frederick S. Oliver, M. E. Merkel, and A. M. Dean, asking that Lewis G. Stevenson, Secretary of State, be commanded to issue a certificate of the complete organization of a corporation known as ‘Oliver & Co., Incorporated,’ pursuant to the provisions of an act entitled ‘An act concerning real estate agency corporations,’ approved June 23, 1915. Laws of 1915, p. 330. The petition alleges that all the steps prescribed by the General IncorporationAct have been taken to organize a corporation pursuant to the provisions of the Real Estate Agency Corporation Act, under the corporate name of Oliver & Co., Incorporated, but that respondent refuses to issue a certificate of the complete organization of the corporation. Respondent has demurred to the petition, and the cause has been submitted upon the petition and the demurrer.
The only question presented for our determination is whether the act of June 23, 1915, is in violation of that portion of section 13 of article 4 of the Constitution which is as follows:
‘No law shall be revived or amended by reference to its title only, but the law revived, or the section amended, shall be inserted at length in the new act.’
The title of the act in question is ‘An act concerning real estate agency corporations.’ The act is as follows:
‘Section 1. Be it enacted by the people of the state of Illinois, represented in the General Assembly: That corporations may be formed in the manner provided by the general incorporation laws of this state, being an act entitled, ‘An act concerning corporations,’ approved April 18, 1872, and in force July 1, 1872, and all acts amendatory thereof, for the purpose of carrying on the real estate agency business, and when so formed shall be subject to all provisions of law now or hereafter in force applying to corporations organized under said general incorporation laws.
Section 1 of the General Incorporation Act (Laws 1871-72, p. 296), referred to in the act, provides that corporations may be formed in the manner provided by the act for any lawful purpose except banking, insurance, real estate brokerage, the operation of railroads, and the business of loaning money. Section 5 of the act provides, among other things, that corporations formed under the act may own, possess, and enjoy so much real and personal estate as shall be necessary for the transaction of their business, and may sell and dispose of the same when not required for the uses of the corporation. This section also provides that corporations may borrow money at legal rates of interest and pledge their property, real and personal, to secure the payment thereof, and provides specifically for the manner in which any surplus real estate acquired in satisfaction of any liability or indebtedness may be disposed of each year.
It is the contention of respondent that the act in question violates section 13 of article 4 of the Constitution, for the reason that it is but an amendment of sections 1 and 5 of the General Incorporation Act. As has been noted, section 1 of the Incorporation Act prohibits the forming of corporations to transact the business of real estate brokerage....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People ex rel. Rusch v. Ladwig
...Court Act. They say this has never been passed upon and rely upon Nelson v. Hoffman, 314 Ill. 616, 145 N.E. 688, and People ex rel. v. Stevenson, 272 Ill. 325, 111 N.E. 1018. In the Nelson Case the act held violative of section 13 of article 4 was an act to amend an act regarding chattel mo......
-
Schireson v. Walsh
...Constitution. Broder v. Krenn, 334 Ill. 256, 165 N. E. 602; Nelson v. Hoffman, supra; Galpin v. City of Chicago, supra; People v. Stevenson, 272 Ill. 325, 111 N. E. 1018;Badenoch v. City of Chicago, 222 Ill. 71, 78 N. E. 31;Brooks v. Hatch, 261 Ill. 179, 103 N. E. 745;O'Connell v. McClenath......
-
People v. Clark
...4 of the Constitution, and it is for this further reason void. Badenoch v. Cith of Chicago, 222 Ill. 71, 78 N. E. 31;People v. Stevenson, 272 Ill. 325, 111 N. E. 1018;Board of Education v. Haworth, 274 Ill. 538, 113 N. E. 939. Other errors occurred during the course of the trial; but, inasm......
-
Monarch Discount Co. v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. of Indiana
...to be determined without reference to any other act. It differs in this regard from the act considered by this court in People v. Stevenson, 272 Ill. 325, 111 N. E. 1018, and is governed by the principles announced in People v. Crossley, 261 Ill. 78 , 103 N. E. 537,People v. Knopf, 183 Ill.......