INJUNCTION (Lat. injunet io, from inian gcre. to command. from in, in jingo re, to join: connected with Gk. :eryciTat, ccugnrlra1. Skt. yuj, to join, and ultimately with Eng. yoke). A judicial writ or process of a court of equity, com manding a person or persons named therein to do or not to do a particular thing. It had its origin in the Ilionan law-, under which system a some what similar process, known as an interdict. was The idea was int rodueed into England and Scotland by the early as a re sult of their search for remedies to modify the harshness of the common law and to supplement it where inadequate to meet the ends of justice. In Seotland the remedy is still called an 'inter dict.' The scope of its use and application has greatly widened until to-day it is perhaps the most important remedy of an equitable nature.
The purposes for which an injunction may he employed may he described generally as fol lows: (1) To prevent the commission of certain wrongs of a civil nature; (2) to protect rights; (3) to compel the restoration of rights. The greatest proportion of injunctions fall under the two classes first named, and arc n-nally termed they operate to prevent wrongs by restraining nets, while the third class, called 1111111(11thlry, as descriptive of their purpose to compel the affirmative performance of an act, are more rarely used. A common example of a preventive injunction is one to restrain the con tinuance of a nuisance. such as generating nu usual quantities of black smoke and cinders in a great city; whereas one to compel the restoration of running water to it- natural channel by a person who has wrongfully diverted it therefrom would he classed as mandatory. A railroad which has wrongfully laid tracks without first getting the right of way may be compelled to remove them by one of the latter class of injuinetions. Some other important uses of preventive injunc tions are: To prevent the violation of contracts, as a contract not to sing for any one except the other party to the contract : to restrain or pre vent waste, or nuisance; to protect patent rights, copyrights. and trademarks from infringement; and to stay proceedings in a court of law. The latter object is effected by enjoining one or both of the parties to the action from proceeding further in the cause. The injunction does wit seek to oust the court of law of its jurisdiction or to restrain the judge in the exercise of his judicial functions. The lire rogatire will be exer eised in this way only when the prosecution of the action or the enforcement of a will result inequitably to one of the parties. Where equitable defenses are permitted in a legal action. as in New N'ork, there is seldom reason for such interference. .- court of equity will sometimes
enjoin n party or parties, within its own jurisdic tion, from prosecuting an action in another juris diction. A mitable example of such exercise of power is where a United States court restrains all creditors prosecuting actions in State courts for the enforcement of their claims against a bankrupt from proceeding further in their actions, thus leaving all matters relating to his estate to its own A court of equity follows the same rules in this summary method of proeedure as in the exer cise of its other functions, and therefore will only grant an injunction when the remedy at law will be inadequate to give a party who is wronged the complete relief to whieh lie is entitled. One reason for issuing an injunction is to prevent irreparable damage. Win re, for example. a per son maintains an offensive nuisance which ope rates to keep away customers from a near-by shop, the shopkeeper could recover damages in a court of law, hnt. as a long delay may ensue before his cause can be reaelied. his business may he ruined in the meantime. His damages. in that. event, would be hard to estimate, and the wrongdoer might be financially irresponsible, and, therefore, that relief would he manifestly inadequate to pro tect him; whereas. if the nuisance is immediately abated, in compliance with an injunction order, he is saved irreparable damage. hues criticism and eontroversy has been occasioned by the class of ea-e: where the courts have enjoined labor agitators and sympathi7ers from inducing or coercing contented workingmen to strike, for the purpose of inflicting injury and damage on their employers. and thereby forcing them to grant the concessions demanded bytheir organizations. This has been called 'governing by injunction,' and has been denounced by such leaders and sonic publicists as an unwarranted new and arbitrary exercise of power by the courts. This contention not supported by legal authority, as the right to conduct one's business without interference or molestation from others in any manner is a long established privilege of citizenship, the violation of which is an actionable wrong at law, and the jurisdiction of a court of equity to prevent wrongs and injuries to persons and their property and to restrain combinations and conspiracies for unlawful purposes has always been exercised and has never been questioned by any court, State or Federal, since the organization of our judicial system. The English authorities are to the same effect. Of course. the crux of the question in all these cases is, what constitutes an interference or molestation of another's business within the meaning of the law: and upon this point opin ions are widely divergent.