The theocrat. [volume] (Zion City [i.e. Zion], Ill.) 1914-1949, 1916-01-08

relief afforded the complainant is not entitled to- the
preliminary injunction An injunction will granted where
there grave doubt its proprety necessity" On page
7o2 "A preliminary injunction will not general rule be
granted in where is shown that any rreparable
Immediately impending and will be visited upon complain
ant before the case can be brought final hearing
The above quotations from the of Cyc are most of
them supported by great number of citations generally from the
reports OF other states and federal courts The author how
does not note any decision of this conflict with the
general principles that he reference the vol
es OF Annotaons of C showing decisions these various
points since the publication of the volume which we have
quoted dcoses that most of these principles have since that
time been restaed recognized again and again by federal
and state courts This opinion might be extended great length
by citing and discussing those cases.
In the late of Mcmillan " Kuehne Is N T. Eo Isl
the court considered application for temporary Injunction by
owners OF dwelling houses baseball park holding
baseball games there Sunday the bill charging that crowds
attending the by and confusion disturbed the peace
ana quiet OF the ne1ghbohood and held them entitled
writ. The court said =
pressure OF an urgent necessity The damage which egit
mate to during the tendency of suit must be in an
equitable point of view of rreparabe character Citing
authories) And quoting from an earlier authority inn
possible to emphasize too strongly the rule often enforced b
court at preliminary injunction will not be allowed when
injury Which may result from the invasion of the complain
ant right not irreparabe and added-Tha the injury com
OF could not be considered as reparabe mischief
ha II 1t be conceded that the disturbance of such character
as to ente companans to injunction final hearing of
the cause still is not so substantial the issuing of
temporary writ.
In Meyer v. Somervile Water Co. 70 N T. Eq 613 the
court SAID The object of preliminary injunction prevent
some threatening rreparabe injury pending full and deliberate
investigation of the upon the merits It will not be ordered
unless from the of urgent necessity where the
damage threatened during the tendency of suit is of an m
reparable character Getting authorities)
In the of Blanchard Eastern Pennsylvania Power Co.
81 ~ Eq H. it held if the companan rests on legal
right which not clear and has been fairly questioned then
preliminary injunction be granted Getting auhoties9
In Frederic Huber 100 Penn 52 the court in holding
preliminary Injunction restraining the church improper
granted said that was practically to reverse the whole
status of the parties and addedThs the office of pre-
nmary Injunction which is subver but maintain the
existing status until the merits of the controversy be fully
heard and detemned And addThat the status quo which
VIII De preserved by preliminary injunction is the last actual
troversy" 0 wa
In snodgras Mcdaniel IA Iowa. 674 the court applied
the rule that the of temporary Injunction to preserve
the status quo OF the parties and not to obtain affirmative relief in
advance of the trial.
We find in Richards Messner 58 Fed Rep 1Oo the fol-
loving language relation to granting preliminary Injunction
it does not finally determine the rights of the parties to
the action and intended only preserve the existing status
until the be fully heard and therefore not
that the court should before granting be satisfied that the
complainant will certainly prevail upon the final HEARING Of te
the should nevertheless be careful that the COMPLAIN
ant has probable right and that there is probably DANGER that
such right will be defeated without the special ntepostion of the
court equally true that where the showing made at the
preliminary hearing the law the right an Injunction is
quite doubtful and that much if more injury would pro-
baby to the defendants than the COMPLIMENTS and es
Pecay where in the event of the bill being dismissed on final
hearing there grave doubt adequate redress to the de-
PENDANT resulting from the injunction the should refuse
he application Tor temporary and await action
all the facts appear on final hearing"
The principles announced in foregoing authorities seem
reasonable and we think might be taken guide by courts
OF THIS state IN passing motions for temporary niuncton
Even on nnaI nearing
Dal 10Y ILL 590In where mandatory nunctons are
asked TOR 1t the duty OF the inconvenience
and damage that will result TO the defendant we'll as the benefit
TO accrue to the complainant by the granting of the writ and
where the defendants damages and injuries will greater b
granting the writ greater than will be companants damages
by refusal OF It, the will sound discretion
refuse the writ (oyd Calm Coal Co. 20 ILL., 400; Dunn
1oumans ~ i'd 81; High nuncons 4th ed Sec and
cased c1ted Applying those rules this case we are unable to
see any valid reason for the decree that the COM
Panants will final hearing be entitled an Injunction still
the maintaining OF the ordinary drug and physicians office
IN the City OF ZION during the tendency of the suit was not such
threatened mischief and injury should be held reparabe
IN passing on motion for temporary injunction The restrain
ing order did not issue maintain the quo but was in
the nature OF mandatory injunction granting relief sought by
the bill IN advance OF hearing the merits and therefore such
as VIII not ordinarily be granted There grave doubt about the
Many questions arise the legal effect of various facts
avered IN the BILL and whether sound consideration of public
policy will permit the enforcement of the covenants
reed on can only be known after final decision court
last resort and hnay the injury and mischief inflicted by
wrongful issuing II the writ supendng established business
during the tendency OF the that
compensated IN damages and therefore the defendants could
not be adequately protected by the bond required while the
jury that would be sustained by the compainants wrongfuv
refusing the writ is of little Importance.
we are of opinion that the should issued and
ha the trial court not acting within sound judicial dis
ceon IN entering the decree awarding decree
should be reversed
Reversed.