√─┌╬─ ┐│ LaserRetrieve Version 2.4É %Thursday August 23, 1990 1:33 am │└╬─┘┌╬─┐│à C159 ILL. APP. 3D 275 DELCON GROUP, INC V. NORTHERN TRST CORP 1987å │├╬─
┤│ 97 Ill. App. 3d 589, 591, 422 N.E.2d 1130.) Whether to grant a preliminary ││ injunction is a matter within the discretion of the trialö J││ court. Cincinnati Tool Steel Co. v. Breed (1985), 136 Ill. App. 3d 267,å ││ 273, 482 N.E.2d 170.╣ ││å >>> 5 We conclude that the trial court abused its discretion byè G││ granting the preliminary injunction in this case. Although the rightë ││ to conduct a lawful busi┌Ö─┐erty right entitledç G││ to protection by a court│ BookMark set complete │ircumstances (seeë ││ ABC Trans National Trans└Ö─ ┘Forwarders,Å H││ Inc. (1978), 62 Ill. App. 3d 671, 683, 379 N.E.2d 1228, appeal deniedê K││ (1978), 71 Ill. 2d 616), this is not such a case. Here, Delcon asserts aà G││ lawful right to avoid having collateral collected by a secured partyë 9││ and has failed to establish such a right in this case.ù ││å >Under article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code, Northern Trustè F││ had a clear statutory right to collect the accounts receivable onceè ││ there was a default by Delcon. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 26, par. 9-502.) ││ Both commercial necessity and common sense dictate that a securedî │└╬─M┘ <ESC>=HitList <ENTER>=Print <F3>&<F2>=HitWord <ALT-F6>=Internal Searchä ≥p■p≤■╬╬╬╬╬╬Äåpà¢pÜÖ¢pÜÖ¢pÜ╬╬åp╟╬╬╬╬╬╤╦p Searchä ≥p■p≤■╬
