Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Farmers Oil & Supply Co. v. Illinois Central Railroad

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided August 2, 1972No. 11572Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE TRAPP

specially concurring in part and dissenting in part:

I concur in the disposition reached for the reason that our Courts have consistently held that they will not entertain an action for declaratory judgment which has the effect of ousting the court which, in fact, had jurisdiction of the subject matter and parties. (Fairbanks, Morse & Co. v. Freeport, 5 Ill.2d 85, 125 N.E.2d 57; Trojan Fireworks Co. v. Acme Specialties Corp., 66 Ill.App.2d 108, 213 N.E.2d 44; Wolf v. Solem, 26 Ill.App.2d 262, 167 N.E.2d 820.) Within such context it is not necessary to consider the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Fairbanks, Morse & Co. v. City of FreeportIllinois Supreme Court · 1955
  2. Wolf v. SolemAppellate Court of Illinois · 1960
  3. Trojan Fireworks Co. v. Acme Specialties Corp.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1965

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API