Civil Procedure - Judgments - Exceptions to the Rule of Res Judicata

A land contract provided for a conveyance to Pearson from Adams and his wife. The wife was not a party to the contract and refused to execute the deed. Pearson sought specific performance requesting relief of a type not then available in Illinois and when asked if he would accept a deed from Adams alone, he refused. The action was dismissed. Adams then brought this action in ejectment and Pearson counterclaimed requesting a deed executed by Adams alone. The trial court found that the judgment in the previous action was res judicata as to the counterclaim. On appeal, held, reversed. The equities in favor of Pearson so far outweighed the basic policies of res judicata that the counterclaim was not barred. Adams v. Pearson, 411 Ill. 431, 104 N.E. (2d) 267 (1952)

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS-EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS ACCRUING FROM PARKING METERS

Panama City proposed to issue bonds to finance the reconstruction, paving, and improvement of city streets. The bonds were to be secured by and payable from the revenue of the city\u27s parking meters. A petition for validation of the bond issue was submitted and was refused. On appeal, held, affirmed. The city may not use the revenue from the parking meters to finance the reconstruction, paving and improvement of streets since this bears no reasonable relation to the regulation of parking and is therefore an illegal exercise of the police power. Panama City v. State, (Fla. 1952) 60 S. (2d) 658

CORPORATIONS-APPOINTMENT OF RECEIVER SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BRINGING SUIT

An ex parte petition was filed by a minority stockholder of a foreign corporation requesting the appointment of a special receiver for certain claims of the corporation against resident fiduciaries. The claims, which had not been prosecuted by the corporation, were about to be barred by the statute of limitations. A receiver was appointed and brought suit. The corporation appeared specially requesting that the order be set aside. Held, motion denied. A court of equity has inherent power to appoint a receiver for the assets of a foreign corporation in an ex parte proceeding instituted by a minority stockholder. Application of Burge, (N.Y. 1952) 118 N.Y.S. (2d) 23

Civil Procedure - Judgments - Exceptions to the Rule of Res Judicata

A land contract provided for a conveyance to Pearson from Adams and his wife. The wife was not a party to the contract and refused to execute the deed. Pearson sought specific performance requesting relief of a type not then available in Illinois and when asked if he would accept a deed from Adams alone, he refused. The action was dismissed. Adams then brought this action in ejectment and Pearson counterclaimed requesting a deed executed by Adams alone. The trial court found that the judgment in the previous action was res judicata as to the counterclaim. On appeal, held, reversed. The equities in favor of Pearson so far outweighed the basic policies of res judicata that the counterclaim was not barred. Adams v. Pearson, 411 Ill. 431, 104 N.E. (2d) 267 (1952)

CORPORATIONS-APPOINTMENT OF RECEIVER SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BRINGING SUIT

An ex parte petition was filed by a minority stockholder of a foreign corporation requesting the appointment of a special receiver for certain claims of the corporation against resident fiduciaries. The claims, which had not been prosecuted by the corporation, were about to be barred by the statute of limitations. A receiver was appointed and brought suit. The corporation appeared specially requesting that the order be set aside. Held, motion denied. A court of equity has inherent power to appoint a receiver for the assets of a foreign corporation in an ex parte proceeding instituted by a minority stockholder. Application of Burge, (N.Y. 1952) 118 N.Y.S. (2d) 23

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS-EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS ACCRUING FROM PARKING METERS

Panama City proposed to issue bonds to finance the reconstruction, paving, and improvement of city streets. The bonds were to be secured by and payable from the revenue of the city\u27s parking meters. A petition for validation of the bond issue was submitted and was refused. On appeal, held, affirmed. The city may not use the revenue from the parking meters to finance the reconstruction, paving and improvement of streets since this bears no reasonable relation to the regulation of parking and is therefore an illegal exercise of the police power. Panama City v. State, (Fla. 1952) 60 S. (2d) 658