Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

84 Ill. 162

Renwick v. Hall

Illinois Supreme Court

Decided September 15, 1876

Illinois Supreme Court · decided 1876-09-15

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court of He Kalb county; the Hon. Theodore D. Murphy, Judge, presiding.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1876-09-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently May 1943

15 state decisions

4018761880189019001910192019301940decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Mr. Justice Dickey

¶1delivered the opinion of the Court:

¶2The trustees of schools of two adjoining towns established, or attempted to establish, a new school district, composed of territory taken part from a district in one town, part from a district in the other town, and part from another district in the latter town. Directors of schools were chosen for this supposed new school district.

¶3Appellants, owners of real estate in the several old districts from which the territory for the new one was taken, and also of real estate in the boundaries of the new district, filed their bill in equity in the circuit court, alleging that the proceedings in this regard were, in many respects, irregular and illegal, and that, in contemplation of law, no new district had been formed; and alleging, among other things, that the directors of the new district were about to contract debts to build a new school house, which would impose an illegal burden upon them, or at least an improper cloud upon their lands in the new district, and asking for an injunction forbidding these directors and other public officers from recognizing the new district as having a legal existence, and especially forbidding the contracting of debt to build the proposed new school house. The circuit court, on motion, dissolved the injunction and dismissed the bill, and complainants appeal to this court.

¶4We find no grounds in this bill upon which to found jurisdiction in a court of equity. The objections presented to the regularity of the proceedings called in question are merely technical. If these objections he fatal, there is a complete remedy at law.

¶5By our statute, an information in the nature of a quo warranto-will lie where “ any association or number of persons shall act within this State as a corporation without being legally incorporated.” If it be true, as alleged in this hill, that a new district has never been created under the law, in such case the legal existence of this quasi corporation can he tested, and its illegality established by proceedings under this statute. We find in this record neither fraud, accident, mistake nor irreparable damages, nor any other ground for the jurisdiction of a court of equity.

¶6The decree of the circuit court is affirmed.

¶7Decree affirmed.

/84/ill/162 · .json · Public domain