enforcement would be practicable." The rule concerning the enforcement of covenants affecting land has been thus stated: "If the construction of the instrument be clear and the breach clear, then it is not a question of damage, but the mere circumstance of the breach of covenant affords sufficient ground for the court to interfere by injunction." This is, however, sub

ject to the exception that if it would be against public policy to enforce the covenant,- for example, if a change of circumstances have rendered it improper to use land in accordance with the terms of a covenant regulating its use, or if, on account of such a change, the object of the parties to the covenant would not be accomplished by its enforcement, equity will not interfere."

§ 209. Injunctions to restrain a multiplicity of suits.Injunctions are granted in order to prevent a multiplicity of suits under bills of peace. Bills of peace are bills to restrain a number of persons from endeavoring to enforce in different suits the same or similar claims; or to prevent a single person from reiterating in several successive suits the same unsuccessful claim; or to prevent a person from levying a tax, the payment of which will subject the plaintiff to the hazard of a number of suits from other parties; bills of interpleader1 and in the nature of interpleader; bills to enjoin a continuing tres

U. S. 643; Bispham's Eq., § 376. See
Randolph's Ex'r v. Quidnick Co., 135
U. S. 457.

5 Ross v. Union Pac. R. Co., 1 Woolw. 26; Fallon v. Railroad Co., 1 Dill. 121; Texas & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Marshall, 136 U. S. 393; Bispham's Eq., § 377.

6 V. C. Wood in Tipping v. Eckersley, 2 K. & J. 264. See also Lord Manners v. Johnson, L. R. 1 Ch. D. 673; Lloyd v. London, C. & D. Ry. Co., 2 De G., J. & S. 568; T. of Columbia College v. Lynch, 70 N. Y. 404.

7 Duke of Bedford v. British Museum, 2 M. & K. 552; Troy & B. R. Co. v. Boston, H. T. & W. Ry. Co., 86 N. Y. 107; Columbia College v. Thacher, 87 N. Y. 311; Leake's Digest of the Law of Contracts, 1152. But see Lloyd v. London, Ch. & D. Ry. Co., 11 Jur. (N. S.) 380.

§ 209. Sheffield Water Works v. Yeomans, L. R. 2 Ch. App. 8. See Scottish Union, etc. Ins. Co. v. J. H. Mohlmann & Co. 73 Fed. R. 66; supra, §§ 72, 73.

2 Earl of Bath v. Sherwin, 4 Brown Parliamentary Cases, 373.

3 Cummings v. National Bank, 101 U. S. 153, 157; Pelton v. National Bank, 101 U. S. 143, 148; Hills v. Exchange Bank, 105 U. S. 319; supra, § 12.

4 Louisiana State Lottery Co. v. Clark, 16 Fed. R. 20; s. c., 4 Woods, 169; McLaughlin v. Swann, 18 How. 217; City Bank v. Skelton, 2 Blatchf. 14; supra, § 88.

5 Dorn v. Fox, 61 N. Y. 264; supra,

§ 89.

pass, nuisance, infringement of patents, copyrights and trade-marks; 10 and bills to quiet possession." Injunctions to restrain a continuing trespass, nuisance and the infringement of patents, copyrights and trade-marks, are more often said to be granted to prevent irreparable injury, and will, therefore, be considered under that head. An injunction to quiet the possession before the hearing formerly issued to restrain the party to whom it was directed from taking forcible possession of lands pending litigation concerning them. It was issued at the request of either a plaintiff or a defendant to a suit, if the applicant had had peaceable possession of the premises for the three years preceding the filing of the bill, and his interest therein had not been determined by forfeiture, surrender, or other lawful means. He was required to swear to these facts in his bill, and according to the practice before Lord Bacon's time, to give a bond to the amount of £10 as a security that the information so given was true.12 Such injunctions were formerly very common; but have now fallen into disuse. The last reported instance was in Lord Hardwicke's time.13

§ 210. Injunctions to prevent irreparable injury for which the remedy at law is inadequate; in general. The most ordinary ground upon which an injunction issues, and the one, indeed, which includes all but the first of those previously mentioned, is that, otherwise, the plaintiff would suffer an irreparable injury, for which damages at law would be no adequate remedy. It would be impossible specifically to mention here all the different instances in which an injunction issues for this reason; but the following is an enumeration of those of more frequent occurrence which have not been previously described. An injunction will issue on account of the inadequacy of the remedy at common law: to stay proceedings in other courts, either of law, equity, or admiralty; to restrain the indorse

6 Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Burlington & Missouri R. Co., 2 McCrary,203; infra, § 215.

7 Woodruff v. North Bloomfield G. M. Co., 18 Fed. R. 753. See § 214.

8 U. S. R. S., § 4921; supra, § 216. 9 U. S. R. S., § 4970; supra, § 77; infra, § 217.

10 Shaw Stocking Co. v. Mack, 12 Fed. R. 707; supra, § 218.

11 Hughes v. Morden College, 1 Ves. Sen. 188. See supra, § 7.

12 Eden on Injunctions, ch. xvi,

p. 240.

13 Hughes v. Morden College, 1 Ves. Sen. 188.

§ 210. § 211.

ment or negotiation of notes and bills of exchange, the sale of land, the sailing of a ship, the transfer of stock, or the alienation of a specific chattel;2 to restrain the commission of every species of waste or act in the nature of waste; to suppress the continuance of a public or private nuisance; to prevent a threatened destructive trespass; to prevent the infringement of patents; to prevent the violation of copyright, whether by printed publications, or theatrical representation, or otherwise; to prevent the unauthorized use of trade-marks, and the opening of private letters; to compel the performance or prevent the breach of contracts other than those for the payment of money only; 10 and, under very extraordinary circumstances, to compel the delivery of personal property wrongfully withheld." An injunction has been granted to restrain the sale by scalpers of return railroad tickets, which by their terms were not transferable, when the use of such tickets could only be made by fraud; 12 and to prevent the creation of a cloud on a title.13

7

9

§ 211. Injunctions to stay proceedings in other courts.Injunctions to stay proceedings in other courts are of much less frequent occurrence now that discovery and the inspection of documents can be obtained at common law without the aid of equity than they were formerly; but they are still occasionally issued, especially in bankruptcy.1 Such injunctions must not be confounded with writs of prohibition, which are addressed to the judges of a court, whereas injunctions are directed to the parties to the proceedings which it is desired to restrain.2 Ordinarily, when two courts have a concurrent jurisdiction over the same thing, whichever court was first possessed of the cause has a right to proceed with the same, and proceedings in it will not be prohibited or restrained in another. A State court 28 212. 3 § 213.

4 § 214. 5 § 215. 6 § 216. 78 217.

8 § 218.

9 § 219.

10 § 220. 11 § 221.

12 Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. McConnell, 82 Fed. R. 65.

13 Wilson v. Lambert, 168 U. S. 611. § 211. 1 McLean v. Lafayette Bank, 8 McLean, 185; In re Schwartz, 14 Fed. R. 787.

2 See Eden on Injunctions, ch. ii; Peck v. Jenness, 7 How. 624; Dillon v. K. C. S. B. Ry. Co., 43 Fed. R. 109, 111.

3 Nicholas v. Nicholas, Prec. in Ch. 546; Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1845; supra, §§ 9, 10. But see Erie Ry. Co. v. Ramsey, 45 N. Y. 637.

has no power to stay by injunction a proceeding in a court of the United States. The Constitution does not forbid a State court from enjoining in a proper case a person within its jurisdiction from prosecuting a suit in a court of another State. The Revised Statutes of the United States expressly provide that "The writ of injunction shall not be granted by any court of the United States to stay proceedings in any court of a State, except in cases where such injunction may be authorized by any law relating to proceedings in bankruptcy."6 "This prohibition of the statute extends to all cases over which the State court first obtains jurisdiction, and applies not only to injunctions aimed at the State court itself, but also to injunctions aimed to parties before the court, its officers or litigants therein.' Accordingly a Federal court has refused to enjoin a railway company from taking possession of land upon the termination of condemnation proceedings in a State court, and a town from selling property to pay an assessment the collection of which has been ordered by a State court directing the laying out of a highway; and a State receiver from issuing receiver's certificates; 10 and parties to a suit in a State court from carrying out an agreement sanctioned by it;" and an administrator from distributing the estate in his hands.12

The statute does not forbid an injunction against the commencement of a civil suit not already brought. It has been

4 McKim v. Voorhies, 7 Cranch, 279; Duncan v. Darst, 1 How. 301306; City Bank of N. Y. v. Skelton, 2 Blatchf. 14.

5 Cole v. Cunningham, 133 U. S. 107. 6 U. S. R. S., § 720. See Slaughter House Cases, 10 Wall. 273; Haines v. Carpenter, 91 U. S. 254; Dial v. Reynolds, 96 U. S. 340; Rensselaer & S. R. Co. v. Bennington & R. R. Co., 18 Fed. R. 617; M., K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Scott, 13 Fed. R. 793; s. C., 4 Woods, 386; Hamilton v. Walsh, 23 Fed. R. 420; Tifft v. Iron Clad Mfg. Co., 16 Blatchf. 48; Yick Wo v. Crowley, 26 Fed. R. 207. Where a bill prays an injunction or stay proceedings in a State court, and also other relief which would be useless without such

13

an injunction, the whole bill will be dismissed on demurrer. Molony v. Massachusetts Loan Ass'n, 53 Fed. R. 209.

7 Toulmin, D. J., in Whitney v. Wilder (C. C. A.), 54 Fed. R. 554, 555; Chicago Trust & Sav. Bank v. Bentz (C. C. A.), 59 Fed. R. 645, 647.

8 Dillon v. Kansas City S. B. Ry. Co., 43 Fed. R. 109.

9 Fenwick Hall Co. v. Old Saybrook, 66 Fed. R. 389.

10 Reinach v. Atlantic & G. W. R. Co., 58 Fed. R. 33.

11 Ibid.

12 Whitney v. Wilder (C. C. A.), 54 Fed. R. 554.

13 Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Kutemen (C. C. A.), 54 Fed. R. 547. For the con

held that a Federal court has power to issue an injunction to stay proceedings in a State court which interfere with the enforcement of one of its own judgments, and to stay proceedings which have been instituted or continued after the beginning or removal of the suit in the Federal jurisdiction." Such an injunction should rarely be issued.15 It has been held that where property has been sold under a decree directing that the purchaser pay all claims against the receiver, the court will enjoin a suit against the purchaser 16 in the State court, but that this rule does not apply where property in the possession of a receiver is returned to the original owner on the same conditions; "that under the act of Congress limiting the liability of the owners of ships, a District Court of the United States may issue a stay-order restraining proceedings previously begun in State courts; 18 that when a creditor of a corporation has begun proceedings in a Federal court to enforce his claim against the corporation, the defendant corporation may be enjoined "from taking proceedings for its own dissolution, or for the appointment of a receiver of its effects, or for the distribution thereof among its stockholders and any other persons, and from making any distribution or transfer of any of its effects." 19 It has been said that "it is now so thoroughly

struction of an order forbidding the use of a certain defense, see Wakelee v. Davis, 50 Fed. R. 522.

14 French v. Hay, 22 Wall. 350; Dietzsch v. Huidekoper, 103 U. S. 494; Fisk v. Union Pac. R. Co., 10 Blatchf. 518; Sharon v. Terry, 36 Fed. R. 337; Jesup v. Wabash, St. L. & P. Ry. Co., 44 Fed. R. 663, 664, 667; Abeel v. Culberson, 56 Fed. R. 329; Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Ford, 85 Fed. R. 170; Bowdoin College v. Merritt, 59 Fed. R. 86; Central Trust Co. v. St. Louis, A. & T. Ry. Co., 59 Fed. R. 385; Central Tr. Co. v. Western N. C. R. Co., 89 Fed. R. 24; Garner v. Second Nat. Bank, 67 Fed. R. 833; Lanning v. Osborne, 79 Fed. R. 657; supra, § 9; infra, §§ 223, 251, 391. But an injunction was refused where, although a petition for removal with a bond had been filed in the State court, no ac

tion had been taken upon them and no copy of the record had been filed in the Federal court. Coeur d'Alene Ry. & Nav. Co. v. Spalding (C. C. A.), 93 Fed. R. 280. See Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Scott, 13 Fed. R. 793.

15 Frishman v. Insurance Co., 41 Fed. R. 449; Sinclair v. Pierce, 50 Fed. R. 851; infra, § 391.

16 Jesup v. Wabash, St. L. & P. Ry. Co., 44 Fed. R. 663, 664, 667; Central Tr. Co. v. St. Louis, A. & T. Ry. Co., 59 Fed. R. 385.

17 Texas & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Johnson, 151 U. S. 81.

18 In re Long Island, N. S. P. & F. T. Co., 5 Fed. R. 599. See Providence & N. Y. S. S. Co. v. Hill Mfg. Co., 109 U. S. 578, 600.

19 Fisk v. Railroad Co., 10 Blatchf 518. But see Kessler v. Continental C. & L. Co., 42 Fed. R. 258.