# Venner v. Chicago City Railway Co.

> Illinois Supreme Court · June 29, 1910 · 246 Ill. 170

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6974924

## Case

- **Full name:** Clarence H. Venner v. The Chicago City Railway Company
- **Court:** Illinois Supreme Court
- **Decided:** June 29, 1910
- **Citations:** 246 Ill. 170; 92 N.E. 643
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Cartwright
- **Judges:** Carter, Cartwright, Vickers
- **Cited by:** 33 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6974924

## Opinion text

Mr. Justice Cartwright dissenting:
The general Incorporation act provides for the organization, management and dissolution of corporations and defines the rights of stockholders of such corporations. The decision that section 13, which gives to stockholders the right to examine the records and books of account of the corporation, extends to corporations created by special acts, seems to me to disregard a settled and established rule for the construction of statutes which was followed and applied in the decision of the case-of People v. Healy, 231 111. 629, and was applied to the act now in question in Wincock v. Turpin, 96 111. 135. The supposed distinction between this •case and the one where section 25 was held not to. apply to corporations created by special acts, which the opinion adopted in this case says exists, is purely verbal and seems to me to be without substance. The opinion recognizes, and by citation of authorities shows, that the words “any corporation,” used in section 25, and “every corporation,” found in section 13, mean precisely the same thing. So the only distinction, in fact,' between the former decision and this one is that the sections are numbered differently, one being numbered 25 and the other 13. That, of course, affords no ground for applying a different rule of construction to the different sections.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6974924. Public record. Not legal advice.