The legislature may provide for the removal of officers for habitual intoxication. McComas v. Krug, 81 Ind. 327.

The vacation of an office by the acceptance of another, falls within this provision. Chambers v. State, ex rel., 127 Ind. 365.

No demand for possession of the office is necessary in order to maintain proceedings of ouster. Wood v. State, ex rel., 130 Ind. 364.

Third. Where any association or number of persons shall act, within this State, as a corporation, without being legally incorporated.

An information under this clause should be against the persons claiming to compose the corporation, and not against the body in its corporate name. Mud Creek Co. v. State, ex rel., 43 Ind. 236.

The information should allege that the persons claiming to compose a corporation have so acted in this state. State, ex rel., v. Kingan, 51 Ind. 142.

An information is the proper remedy to test the legality of the organization of a corporation. Board v. Hall, 70 Ind. 469.

The legal existence of a municipal corporation may be tested by information filed on behalf of the state. Mullikin v. City, 72 Ind. 161; State, ex rel., v. Tipton, 109 Ind. 73. The relator in such a case must have an interest in the matter and must not by his acts have acquiesced in the organization. State, ex rel., v. Tipton, 109 Ind. 73. The legality of the organization of a corporation can not be collaterally questioned, but must be tested by an information. North v. State, ex rel., 107 Ind. 356.

If the statute providing for the organization of a corporation is not substantially complied with the organization may be declared illegal. Statę, ex rel., v. Beck, 81 Ind. 500. If a banking association is illegally organized, a stockholder may file an information to compel the closing up of the affairs of the association. Albert v. State, ex rel., 65 Ind. 413.

That the incorporators do not intend to carry out the objects of incorporation, is no cause for proceeding under this clause. State, ex rel., v. Kingan, 51 Ind. 142.

The right to have articles of incorporation annulled on account of defects may be lost by lapse of time. State, ex rel., v. Bailey, 19 Ind. 452; State, ex rel., v. Gordon, 87 Ind. 171.

Fourth. Or where any corporations do or omit acts which amount to a surrender or a forfeiture of their rights and privileges as a corporation, or when they exercise powers not conferred by law.

Insolvency alone is no cause for declaring the franchise of a corporation forfeited. President, etc., v. State, 1 Blkf. 267; State, ex rel.,v. Bailey, 16 Ind. 46.

If a corporation fails to perform acts which amount to a forfeiture of its franchises, it may be proceeded against under this clause. Danville, etc., Co. v. State, ex ṛel., 16 Ind. 456.

In a proceeding under this clause the information should state under what law the corporation was organized. Danville, etc., Co. v. State, ex rel., 16 Ind. 456.

The commission of a trespass by a corporation is no cause for declaring a forfeiture of its corporate rights. State, ex rel., v. Kill Buck Co., 38 Ind. 71.

When the validity of an organization depends upon the amount of subscriptions for stock, subscriptions by insolvent persons may be cause for declaring a forfeiture of corporate rights. Holman v. State, ex rel., 105 Ind. 569.

Corporate franchises are not lost by a loss of members so long as there are sufficient to supply vacancies. State v. Trustees, etc., 5 Ind. 77.

1146. (1132.) By whom filed.-815. The information may be filed by the prosecuting attorney in the circuit court of the proper county, upon his own relation, whenever he shall deem it his duty to do so, or

shall be directed by the court or other competent authority, or by any other person on his own relation, whenever he claims an interest in the office, franchise, or corporation which is the subject of the information.

Persons other than the prosecuting attorney filing an information must have an interest in the matter to be investigated. State, ex rel., v. Smith, 32 Ind. 213.

An information may be filed either by the prosecuting attorney or by an interested person. Reynolds v. State, ex rel., 61 Ind. 392; State, ex rel., v. Adams, 65 Ind. 393. When a prosecuting attorney is personally interested he may file an information on his own relation. State, ex rel., v. Peterson, 74 Ind. 174.

A stockholder in a de facto corporation can not file an information to test the legality of the organization of the corporate body. North v. State, ex rel., 107 Ind. 356.

A stockholder of an illegal banking association may file an information to have the business wound up. Albert v. State, ex rel., 65 Ind. 413.

Directors of a corporation may file an information against persons who intrude into their offices. Beckett v. Houston, 32 Ind. 393.

When the information is filed by an interested person, the facts showing the nature of his interest must be stated. State, ex rel., v. Ireland, 130 Ind. 77.

1147. (1133.) Of what to consist.-816. The information shall consist of a plain statement of the facts which constitute the grounds of the proceeding, addressed to the court.

As to the form and facts necessary to be set forth in an information, see Eaton v. State, ex rel., 7 Blkf. 65; Danville, etc., Co. v. State, ex rel., 16 Ind. 456; State, ex rel., . Bethlehem, etc., Co., 32 Ind. 357; State, ex rel., v. Kingan, 51 Ind. 142; Milligan v. State, ex rel., 60 Ind. 206; Reynolds v. State, ex rel., 61 Ind. 392; Moore v. State, ex rel., 71 Ind. 478; Chambers v. State, ex rel., 127 Ind. 365.

When several illegal acts are stated in the same paragraph, all are construed together, and not as a separate paragraph for each act. State, ex rel., v. Foulkes, 94 Ind. 493.

There need be but one prayer for relief for several paragraphs. State, ex rel., v. Bailey, 16 Ind. 46.

1148. (1134.) For usurping office.-817. Whenever an information shall be filed against a person for usurping an office, by the prosecuting attorney, he shall also set forth therein the name of the person rightfully entitled to the office, with an averment of his right thereto; and when filed by any other person, he shall show his interest in the matter; and he may claim the damages he has sustained.

An information by a prosecuting attorney to try the title to an office need only contain a statement of the facts and name the person entitled to the office, but if the information is by a person claiming the office the facts must be stated showing his title thereto and his eligibility to hold such office. Reynolds v. State, ex rel., 61 Ind. 392; State, ex rel., v. Long, 91 Ind. 351.

In a proceeding by a prosecuting attorney to have an office declared forfeited, the information need only show the facts constituting the forfeiture. Chambers v. State, rel., 127 Ind. 365.

1149. (1135.) Summons and proceedings.-818. Whenever an information is filed, a summons shall issue thereon; which shall be served and returned as in other actions. The defendant shall appear

and answer, or suffer default, and subsequent proceedings be had as

in other cases.

The proceeding falls within the class known as civil actions. Reynolds v. State, ex rel., 61 Ind. 392; Robertson v. State, ex rel., 109 Ind. 79.

The action must be commenced in the county where the defendant resides. Robertson v. State, ex rel., 109 Ind. 79.

A trial by jury may be had. Reynolds v. State, ex rel., 61 Ind. 392.

If the defendant sets up by answer that he is entitled to hold an office in dispute, he must set out facts showing his election, and his qualifications to hold the office. Reynolds v. State, ex rel., 61 Ind. 392.

The defendant may set up and show that he is entitled to hold the office in dispute. State, ex rel., v. Shay, 101 Ind. 36.

1150. (1136.) Contest for office-Judgment.-819. In every case contesting the right to an office, judgment shall be rendered upon the rights of the parties and for damages the relator may show himself entitled to, if any, to the time of the judgment.

1151. (1137.) Judgment for relator.-820. If judgment be rendered in favor of the relator, he shall proceed to exercise the functions of the office, after he has been qualified as required by law; and the court shall order the defendant to deliver over all the books and papers in his custody or within his power, belonging to the office from which he shall have been ousted.

The pendency of proceedings does not suspend the right of a person elected to possession of an office, and his term commences at the time fixed by law, and not from the date of judgment in a contest. Shannon v. Baker, 33 Ind. 390.

1152. (1138.) Order, how enforced.-821. If the defendant shall refuse or neglect to deliver over the books and papers, pursuant to the order, the court, or judge thereof, shall enforce the order by attachment and imprisonment.

1153. (1139.) Damages.-822. When the judgment is rendered in favor of the plaintiff, he may, if he has not claimed his damages in the information, have his action for the damages at any time within one year after the judgment.

1154. (1140.) One information against several.-823. When several persons claim to be entitled to the same office or franchise, one information may be filed against any or all such persons in order to try their respective rights to the office or franchise.

1155. (1141.) Judgment of ouster or forfeiture.-824. Whenever any person shall be found guilty of any usurpation of, or intrusion into, or unlawfully exercising any office or any franchise within this state, or any office in any corporation created by the authority of this state; or when any public officer, thus charged, shall be found guilty of having done or suffered any act which, by the provisions of law, shall work a forfeiture of his office; or when any association or number of persons shall be found guilty of having acted as a corporation, without having been legally incorporated, the court shall give judgment of ouster against the defendant, and exclude him from the office, franchise, or corporate rights (and in cases of corporations, that the

same shall be dissolved), and the court shall adjudge costs in favor of the plaintiff.

The judgment against a corporation, in the case of a forfeiture of its charter, is, that the franchise be seized into the hands of the state. President, etc., v. State, 1 Blkf. 267.

A seizure of the property of a corporation is different from a forfeiture and seizure of its franchises. Ryan v. Vanlandingham, 7 Ind. 416.

1156. (1142.) Judgment against corporation.-825. If judgment be rendered against any corporation, or against any persons claiming to be a corporation, the court may cause the costs to be collected by execution against the persons claiming to be a corporation, or by attachment against the directors or other officers of the corporation; and shall restrain the corporation, appoint a receiver of its property and effects, take an account, and make a distribution thereof among the creditors. The prosecuting attorney shall immediately institute proceedings for that purpose.

1157. (1143.) To recover escheated property.-826. Whenever any property shall escheat or be forfeited to the state for its use, the legal title shall be deemed to be in the state from the time of the escheat or forfeiture; and an information may be filed by the prosecuting attorney in the circuit court for the recovery of the property, alleging the ground on which the recovery is claimed; and like proceedings and judgment shall be had as in a civil action for the recovery of property.

The attorney-general may file an information in the name of the state, on his relation, to recover lands which have escheated to the state. State v. Meyer, 63 Ind. 33. Under this section the state may appear in a suit and file an information as a counter-claim, and prosecute the same after a dismissal of the original suit. Reid v. State, ex rel., 74 Ind. 252.

1158. (1144.) Costs.-827. When an information is filed by the prosecuting attorney, he shall not be liable for costs; but when it is filed upon the relation of a private person, he shall be liable for costs, unless the same are adjudged against the defendant.

See section 602.

1159. (1145.) To annul instrument.-828. An information may be prosecuted for the purpose of annulling or vacating any letterspatent, certificate, or deed granted by the proper authorities of this state, when there is reason to believe that the same were obtained by fraud, or through mistake or ignorance of a material fact, or when the patentee or those claiming under him have done or omitted an act in violation of the terms on which the letters, deed, or certificate was granted, or have by any other means forfeited the interest acquired under the same.

This section relates only to instruments concerning real estate, and does not apply to licenses issued under statutes of the state. State, ex rel., v. Green, 112 Ind. 462.

1160. (1146.) Proceedings to annul.-829. In such cases, the in

formation may be filed by the prosecuting attorney, upon his relation, or by any private person, upon his relation, showing his interest in the subject-matter; and the subsequent proceeding, judgment of the court, and awarding of costs shall conform to the above provisions, and such letters-patent, deed, or certificate shall be annulled or sustained according to the right of the case.

1168. Second bond unnecessary-Exception. 1177. Motion to dissolve or modify. 1169. Copy of order a sufficient writ.

1170. Stay of judgment-Release of errors. 1171. When and whom binds.

1178. Damages on dissolving.

1179. Damages include rents and waste. 1180. Motion to reinstate.

[1881 S., p. 240. In force September 19, 1881.]

1161. (1147.) Who may grant.-177. Restraining orders and injunctions may be granted by the supreme court in term time, when necessary and proper for the due exercise of the jurisdiction and powers of such court, or by any judge thereof in vacation or recess, and by the circuit courts in their respective counties in term time, or by the judges thereof in vacation, or by a master commissioner, as provided for in section four hundred and nineteen [§ 1404], and the said courts in term time, or the judges thereof in vacation, or a master commissioner, as provided for in aforesaid section, may, in any county of the circuit, issue restraining orders or injunctions to operate in any other county in the circuit.

Generally, courts of equal jurisdiction can not by injunction control the process of each other, but in some cases one court may enjoin the commission of acts under the process of another court. Indiana, etc., R. R. Co. v. Williams, 22 Ind. 198; Davis v. Clark, 26 Ind. 424; Columbus v. Hydraulic Mills Co., 33 Ind. 435; Plunkett v. Black, 117 Ind. 14.

A judge or court can not grant an injunction to operate outside of the jurisdiction of the court. State, ex rel., v. Michaels, 8 Blkf. 436.

Master commissioners can not be empowered to issue injunctions and restraining orders. Shoultz v. McPheeters, 79 Ind. 373.

The supreme court may issue injunctions in actions pending therein on appeal. Leech v. State, ex rel., 78 Ind. 570.

1162. (1148.) Proceedings to obtain.-178. When it appears by the complaint that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief demanded, and the relief, or any part thereof, consists in restraining the commission or continuance of some act, the commission or continuance of which, during the litigation, would produce great injury to the plaintiff, or when, during the litigation, it appears that the defendant is doing, or