Case Name: James P. Darst et al. v. The People of the State of Illinois
Court: Illinois Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 1871-09
Citations: 62 Ill. 306
Docket Number: 
Parties: James P. Darst et al. v. The People of the State of Illinois.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Reports
Volume: 62
Pages: 306–307

Head Matter:
James P. Darst et al. v. The People of the State of Illinois.
1. Injunction—to prevent the holding of an election—contempt. A court of chancery has no jurisdiction to enjoin the holding of an election by the people, and a writ issued for that purpose is void, so that to disregard the writ will not subject a party to punishment as for a contempt of court.
Writ of Error to the Circuit Court of Woodford County; the Hon. S. L. Richmond, Judge, presiding.
This was,a proceeding by attachment for contempt of court, against J. William Clark, James P. Darst, and others, in refusing to obey an injunction writ ordered by William G. Randall, master in chancery of Woodford County, Illinois, prohibiting Jefferson A. Davis, supervisor of the town of Olio, in Woodford County, Daniel It. Meek, assessor, Benjannn L. Moore, collector, and Frank M. Hoyt, clerk of said town, and their successors in office, and all other persons in said town from holding an election, or acting as judges of an election, on the 14th day of June, 1870, for the purpose of voting “ for or against ” a subscription to the capital stock of the Chicago, Pekin & Southwestern Railroad Company, to the amount of $50,000, and from making any subscription on behalf of saiff town of Olio, by virtue of such election, and from issuing bonds of said township to pay said subscription.
The plaintiffs in error were fined twenty dollars each, and judgment was rendered against them for that amount and costs. To reverse this judgment they now bring the record to this court.
Messrs. Worthington & Puterbatjgh, for the plaintiffs in error.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Thornton
delivered the opinion of the Court:
Appellants were fined for contempt of court for refusing to obey a writ of injunction commanding them, as public officers, not to hold an election.
The case is identical, in the facts, with the case of Walton et al. v. Develing et al., 61 Ill. 201. The principles and reasoning in that case apply to this.
The writ of injunction was void, and a party can not disobey a void writ.
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
Judgment reversed.