Paxton v. Fabry

200 Ill. App. 104
CourtAppellate Court of Illinois
DecidedDecember 27, 1915
DocketGen. No. 6,221
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 200 Ill. App. 104 (Paxton v. Fabry) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Paxton v. Fabry, 200 Ill. App. 104 (Ill. Ct. App. 1915).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Carnes

delivered the opinion of the court.

6. Injunction, § 154*—when mandatory injunction not granted on preliminary hearing. Great caution should be used in issuing a mandatory injunction at a preliminary hearing and the complainant must make out a clear case free from doubt or dispute as a basis for its issuance. 7. Injunction, § 154*—when preliminary injunction will not be issued. When the question of law is one of the chief issues to be determined on the final hearing, and complete relief can then be afforded, the complainant is not entitled to a preliminary injunction. 8. Injunction, § 240*—when mandatory injunction granted on final hearing. Where, on a final hearing a mandatory injunction is asked, it is the duty of the court to consider the inconvenience and damage that will, result to the defendant as well as the benefit to accrue to the complainant, by the granting of the writ, and where the defendant’s damages and injuries will be greater by granting the writ than will be the complainant’s benefits by granting the writ, or greater than will be complainant’s damages by the refusal of it, the court will, in the exercise of a sound discretion, refuse the writ. 9. Injunction, § 154*—what does not constitute irreparable injury authorizing issuance of temporary injunction. The maintenance of an ordinary drug store and physician’s office in the City of Zion during the pendency of a suit for an injunction, in violation of restrictive covenants, does not constitute such a threatened mischief and injury as should be held irreparable in passing on a motion for a temporary injunction. 10. Injunction, § 154*—when temporary injunction is in nature of mandatory injunction and improper. An order restraining the use of a building for an ordinary drug store and physician’s office in a city during the pendency of a suit, in violation of restrictive covenants, is in the nature of a mandatory injunction granting the relief sought by the bill in advance of a hearing on the merits, and should not be granted.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cleaning & Dyeing Plant Owners Ass'n v. Sterling Cleaners & Dyers, Inc.
278 Ill. App. 70 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1934)
Levy v. Rosen
258 Ill. App. 262 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1930)
City of Springfield v. North Fork Outlet Drainage District
249 Ill. App. 133 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1928)
City Sanitation Co. v. City of Casper
206 P. 149 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1922)
Utterback v. Estill
224 Ill. App. 151 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1922)
Dobrinsky v. Boylan
222 Ill. App. 494 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1921)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
200 Ill. App. 104, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paxton-v-fabry-illappct-1915.