People ex rel. Thrasher v. Smith
| Decision Date | 24 October 1916 |
| Docket Number | No. 10826.,10826. |
| Citation | 275 Ill. 256,114 N.E. 31 |
| Parties | PEOPLE ex rel. THRASHER v. SMITH et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Cook County; Jesse A. Baldwin, Judge.
Bill by the People, on the relation of Samuel P. Thrasher, against Dave Smith and others. From decree for complainant, defendants appeal. Affirmed.
Rudolph Frankenstein and Maurice J. Slater, both of Chicago, for appellants.
Sims, Welch & Godman, of Chicago (Elwood G. Godman and Daniel J. Ward, both of Chicago, of counsel), for appellee.
This is an appeal by the defendants from a decree of the circuit court of Cook county overruling their demurrer to a bill in equity filed under the provisions of the act approved June 22, 1915, entitled:
‘An act regarding places used for purposes of lewdness, assignation, or prostitution, to declare the same to be public nuisances, and to provide for the more effectual suppression thereof.’ Laws of 1915, p. 371.
It is unnecessary to set forth the allegations of the bill, for no claim is made that they are not sufficient to comply with the terms of the act, but the appellants' contentions are that the statute is unconsitutional and void as class legislation; that it deprives the appellants of their property without due process of law; that it attempts to confer upon a private citizen the duties of the state's attorney and the Attorney General; and that the act attempts to prevent the commission of a criminal offense by injunction.
The bill was not filed by the state's attorney or the Attorney General, but upon the relation of a private citizen of Cook county, under the authority of section 2 of the act. Section 1 declares all buildings, apartments, and places, and the fixtures and movable contents thereof, used for purposes of lewdness, assignation, or prostitution, to be public nuisances, and section 2 authorizes the state's attorney, or any citizen of the county in which such a nuisance exists, to--
‘maintain a bill in equity, in the name of the people of the state of Illinois, perpetually to enjoin all persons from maintaining or permitting such nuisance, and to abate the same, and to enjoin the use of such building or apartment, or such place for any purpose, for a period of one year: * * * Provided, that no such injunction shall issue, except on behalf of an owner or agent, unless it be made to appear to the satisfaction of the court that the owner or agent of such building or apartment or of such place, knew or had been personally served with a notice signed by the petitioner.’
The appellants contend that in extending the right to maintain the bill to citizens of the county only many residents of the county who are not citizens, and many property owners who are neither residents nor citizens of the county, are deprived of the benefit of the bill. The jurisdiction of a court of equity to enjoin the maintenance of a public nuisance at the suit of the Attorney General or state's attorney, even though such maintenance may be punishable by indictment, cannot be doubted, and is recognized in Stead v. Fortner, 255 Ill. 468, 99 N. E. 680, and People v. Clark, 268 Ill. 156, 108 N. E. 994. The action is one affecting the public welfare, and it is within the constitutional power of the Legislature to designate the agency to set the law in motion on behalf of the public. Carleton v. Rugg, 149 Mass. 550, 22 N. E. 55,5 L. R. A. 193, 14 Am. St. Rep. 446;Littleton v. Fritz, 65 Iowa, 488, 22 N. W. 641,54 Am. Rep. 19; Ex parte Allison, 48 Tex. Cr. R. 634, 90 S. W. 492,3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 622,13 Ann. Cas. 684.
The decree restrained the appellants from maintaining, using, or permitting the use of the premises for the purpose of lewdness, assignation, or prostitution, and from using the building, apartments, and premises for any purpose for one year from the date of the decree, and ordered that the building, apartments, and premises should remain in the custodyof the court while the decree remained in effect. It was further ordered...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pompano Horse Club, Inc. v. State
... ... 801 93 Fla. 415 POMPANO HORSE CLUB, Inc., et al. v. STATE ex rel. BRYAN. Florida Supreme Court March 9, 1927 ... En ... extended discretion ... The ... case of Johns v. Smith, 77 Fla. 398, 81 So. 514, is ... distinguishable from this case in that ... or manners of the people as described in section 5624, * * * ... or any * * * place or building ... ...
-
Keystone Bituminous Coal Association v. Benedictis
...hazard); Pompano Horse Club, Inc. v. State ex rel. Bryan, 93 Fla. 415, 111 So. 801 (1927) (gambling facility); People ex rel. Thrasher v. Smith, 275 Ill. 256, 114 N.E. 31 (1916) ("bawdyhouse"). It is hard to imagine a different rule that would be consistent with the maxim "sic utere tuo ut ......
-
The State ex rel. Orr v. Kearns
...Miss. 626; State ex rel. v. Gilbert, 126 Minn. 95; Ridge v. State, 206 Ala. 349; People ex rel. v. Barbiere, 33 Cal.App. 770; People ex rel. v. Smith, 275 Ill. 256; v. Comm., 194 Ky. 143; Wind v. State, 102 Ohio St. 62.] Under the foregoing authorities and many others the Legislature could ......
-
State v. Kearns
...L. R. 1449; Ridge v. State, 206 Ala. 349, 89 South. 742; People ex rel. v. Barbiere, 33 Cal. App. 770,. 166 Pac. 812; People ex rel. v. Smith, 275 Ill. 256, 114 N. E. 31, L. R. A. 1917B, 1075; King v. Comm. ex rel. Smith, 194 Ky. 143, S. W. 373, 22 A. L. R. 535; Wind v. State, 102 Ohio St. ......
-
Sex Work
...the number of displays of sexually explicit materials in an area, thus dispersing adult theatres). 15. People ex rel. Thrasher v. Smith, 114 N.E. 31, 32 (Ill. 1916) (declaring that the state’s regulation of prostitution-related activities “was an exercise of the police power of the state, p......