It is necessary to the obtaining an injunc tion, as to other equitable relief, that there should be no plain, adequate, and complete remedy at law ; Greene v. Mumford, 5 R. I. 472, 73 Am. Dec. 79; Thomas v. Protective Union, 121 N. Y. 45, 24 N. E. 24, 8 L. IL A. 175 ; Pusey v. Wright, 31 Pa. 387; Thomas v. James, 32 Ala. 723; .Coe v. Mfg. Co., 37 N. H. 254 ; Franklin Telegraph Co. v Har rison, 145 U. S. 459, 12 Sup. Ct. 900, 36 L. Ed. 776 ; where there is adequate remedy at law one will not be granted; Harding v. Hawk ins, 141 III. 572, 31 N. E. 307, 33 Am. St. Rep. 347 ; Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Cannon, 49 Fed. 517; Wardens St. Peter's Episcopal Church v. Town of Washington, 109 N. C. 21, 13 S. E. 700; Wolf River Lumber Co. v. Boom Co., 83 Wis. 426, 53 N. W. 678; Planet Property & Financial Co. v. Ry. Co., 115 Mo. 613, 22 S. W. 616. An injunction will not be granted while the rights between the par ties are undetermined, except in cases where material and irreparable injury will be done ; Spring v. Strauss, 3 Bosw. (N. Y.) 607; Bell v. Purvis, 15 Md. 22; Burnett v. Whitesides, 13 Cal. 156 ; Branch Turnpike Co. v. Board of Sup'rs, id. 190; Reed v. Jones, 6 Wis. 680; Watrous v. Rodgers, 16 Tex. 410; Patterson v. McCamant, 28 Mo. 210; Cohen v. L'Engle, 24 Fla. 542, 5 South. 235; but where it is ir reparable and of a nature which cannot be compensated, and where there will be no adequate remedy, an injunction will be grant ed; Webber v. Gage, 39 N. H. 182; Pope v. Inhabitants of Halifax, 12 Cush. (Mass.) 410 ; Cunningham v. R. Co., 27 Ga. 499 ; U. S. V. Parrott, 1 McAll. 271, Fed. Cas. No. 15, 998; Wood v. Braxton, 54 Fed. 1005; Grif fith v. Hilliard, 64 Vt. 643, 25 Atl. 427. A preliminary injunction against the infringe ment of a patent will not be granted in case of doubt as to the infringement ; Norton Door Check & Spring Co. v. Hall, 37 Fed. 691; where defendant confessedly intends to regain possession of certain premises by force, such act being punishable as a breach of the peace, he will not be restrained by in junction; Latham v. R. Co., 45 Fed. 721.
The owner of a dwelling-house, called for 60 years "Ashford Lodge," is not entitled to an injunction restraining the proprietor of an adjoining house known as "Ashford Villa" for 40 years from changing its name to "Ashford Lodge"; 10 Ch. D. 294. An injunction will not lie to prevent a club from carrying out the decision of the mem bers when acting under their rules, unless it be shown that the rules are contrary to natural justice, or that what has been done is contrary to the rules, or that there has been bad faith in a decision ; 5 Eq. 63 ; 13 Ch. D. 346; 17 Ch. D. 615. A member of an incorporated club has a standing in equity fOr an injunction to restrain the club from carrying out its declared purpose of commit ting an act which, if found to be criminal, will imperil the charter of the club; Klein v. Livingston Club, 177 Pa. 224, 35 Atl. 606, 34 L. R. A. 94, 55 Am. St. Rep. 717.
Where there was a conspiracy to prevent workmen by intimidation or persuasion from entering into or continuing in the plaintiff's employment, an injunction was granted to restrain the maintenance of a patrol of two men in front of the plaintiff's premises, placed there in furtherance of such conspir acy ; Vegelahn v. Guntner, 167 Mass. 92, 44
N. E. 1077, 35 L. R. A. 722, 57 Am. St. Rep. 443; but a corporation is not entitled to an injunction against persons or organizations on the ground that they have conspired to injure it by compelling its members to leave it; Silver State Council No. 1 of American Order of Steam Engineers v. Rhodes, 7 Colo. App. 211, 43 Pac. 451. See BOYCOTT.
Where a city had power to build water works, the fact that by so doing it would violate contract rights of an existing water company does not give an individual prop erty owner the right to enjoin the city on the ground that his taxes would be increased thereby ; Moore v. City of Walla Walla, 60 Fed. 961.
Equity will not enjoin a municipal cor poration in the exercise of its lawful pow ers, unless the proposed act is ultra vi/res and would work irreparable injury; Murphy v. East Portland, 42 Fed. 308 ; lint a resident taxpayer and real estate owner is entitled to bring a suit to enjoin the execution of a municipal contract illegally awarded, what ever may be alleged to be his ulterior pur pose ; Mazet v. City of Pittsburgh, 137 Pa. 561, 20 Atl. 693.
An injunction against a newspaper to re strain it from copying literary matter from another newspaper will not be refused be cause such is the practice of newspapers; [1892] 3 Ch. 489, where the cases are col lected.
In England, equity, in special cases of con tracts for personal services, will restrain the violation of the contract, whenever the legal remedy of damages would be inadequate and the contract is of such a kind that its nega tive specific enforcement is possible. This rule was at first applied to contracts which were in form expressly negative, but has since been extended to affirmative contracts which imply negative stipulations ; Porn. Eq. Jur. § 1343 ; L. R. 16 Eq. 149; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. R. Co., 1 McCra. 558, 3 Fed. 423; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. R. Co., 1 McCra. 565, 3 Fed. 430; Singer Sewing Mach. Co. v. Embroidery Co., 1 Holmes 253, Fed. Cas. No. 12,904. But where there was a contract for personal service containing a stipulation by the employed that he will "act exclusively for" his employer, the employed will not be restrained by injunction from en tering the employ of another person in the absence of a negative covenant in the con tract, express or implied, which is clear and definite; 75 L. T. -Rep. 526; Sternberg v. O'Brien, 48 N. J. Eq. 370, 22 AU. 348.
An injunction will not be granted to en force a part of a bilateral contract where it cannot specifically enforce the whole ; Welty v. Jacobs, 171 Ill. 624, 49 N. E. 723, 40 L. R. A. 98, 49 N. E. 723; unless the terms of the agreement are distinct and independent ; 6 Sim. 333 ; 1 De G., M. & G. 604.
An injunction restraining the breach of a contract is a negative specific enforcement of that contract. The jurisdiction of equity to grant such injunction is substantially coinci dent with its jurisdiction to compel specific performance, and wherever a contract is one of a class which will be specifically enforced, a court of equity will restrain its breach by injunction, if this is the only practical mode of enforcement; Welty v. Jacobs, 171 Ill. 624,