Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1893-1920, 1903-02-20
A BROAD DECISION
Is That of State Supreme Court
in Sears Street Rail-
way Case.
MAY AFFECT OUTSIDE GASES
Circuit Court Directed to Issue Per-
petuaI Injunction Against
Company.

ceedings involving the village of
Sears and the Tri-City Railway com
pany were received by the attorneys
for the parties to the suit last even
ing, The decision is a radical one
and promises to affect not only the
franchise of the company in Sears
but i'll Rock Island and Moline as
well, and in fact all foreign street
railway corporations doing business
in the state.
| The supreme court remands the
case for a rehearing, but instructs
the circuit court to grant the per-
manent injunction prayed for to pre-
vent the company from doing bust
ness in the village. Not only is the
action of the village board in grant
ing the franchise held TO be Illegal,
but the court goes further and main
tains that the corporation, being
formed under the laws of Iowa, has
no right to hold a franchise in this
state.
The effect of the ruling will not be
apparent for several days. 1t remains
for the attorneys for the plaintiff in
the case, Kenworthy & Kenworthy, to
serve notice upon the attorneys for
the defense. jackson, Hurst &, Stat
ford, of this city, Joe II. Lane, of
Davenport, and Clarence Knight, of
Chicago, when they will ask to have
the case docketed in the circuit
court When that is, done it remains
| for the court to declare it effective.
Held to Have Jurisdiction.
| The decision first refers to the OBJ
lection on the part of the defendant
company that the court had no iuris-
dictiOn in the matter owing to the
fact that the right to operate the
lines in this state was not based upon
a franchise but upon a license. The
court, however, holds that the right
of the appellee company to exercise
its corporate powers and functions
; in this state is a franchise, and the
) objection is overruled. The gist of
the matter is summed up as follows:
This decree must be reversed, for
two reasons. First, it appeared from
the allegations of the bill and the
. averments of the answer that the or
. dinance of March :, 1901. was not le-
, gally adopted by the board of trus-
tees Of the appellant village. 1t was
Indispensable to the validity of the
ordinance here under conSiderat ion
that it should have received the con
curing votes of four members of the
board of trustees of the village. But
three. members of the board concur
red in its passage. and it was there
fore lacking in legal force and effect
as an ordinance of the village.
SECONDLY, aside from all questions
as to the legality of the mode of its
passage, we think the ordinance was
4 finoperative and void for the reason
that the appellee company, not hav-
ing its corporate life and power from
the state of Illinois, but from for
eign jurisdiction. was incapable. in
law, of becoming clothed with the Ii
cense purported to be granted to it
by the ordinance of the appellant viii
lage, and for the further reason the
village was wholly wanting in power
i to invest the appellee railway com
: pany, a foreign corporation, with au-
8 thority to maintain the tracks of the
railway in the streets of the village or
operate its line of street ears there
on. The bill charges, and the answer
admits, that the appellee corporation
is Il foreign corporation organized UNI
der and by virtue of the Jaws of the
state of Iowa.
Limited to State.
THE appellee corporation has no
legal existence beyond the boundaries
of the sovereignty of the state of
Iowa, by which it was created, and
can exercise none of the functions
and privileges conferred by its char
ter in sister state of the union, eX-
cept by the comfy and consent of
such sister state. On the principles
of comfy foreign corporation may
transact in Illinois such business as
its charter authorizes, save that no
foreign corporation can be permitted
to exercise other or greater powers
than like corporations organized UNI
der the laws of this state possess the
right to exercise. nor, upon the prin-
ciple of comfy, can foreign corpor-
alton transact business in violation
of the public policy of the state.
Such comfy may be presumed to cX-
ist,. and does exist, until the state
expresses an intention to the con-
trary in some affirmative way. The
public policy of the state may be eX-
pressed by direct enactment on the
subject or may be deduced from the
4 general course of legislation. The
power to exercise the right of emf
lnent domain is not conferred by the
principles of comfy, but if possessed
by a foreign corporation must be eX-
pressly granted by legislative enact
4 ment.'
i After going into details upon the
various enactments governing the OPP
erations of street car companies in
this state and the one under which
the company is Incorporated in Iowa.
the court enters into the powers that
cities and villages have over their
streets and cites authorities to show
that the village of Sears had no au-
thority to grant franchise to the
company even had the fact been prop
i Ierly passed by the village board.
III nonInrnn L Irna A 70 TlfrIdn.l