Injunction

— A prohibitory writ, issued by the authority and generally under the seal of a court of e(iuity, to restrain one or more of the defendants or parties or quasi parties to a suit or proceeding in equity, from doing, or from permitting his servants or others who are under his control to do, an act which is deemed to be inequitable so far as regards the rights of some other party or parties to such suit or proceedings in equity. Eden, Inj. c. 1; Kerr, Inj. 9; Jeremy, Eq. Jur. b. 3, c. 2, § 1; Story, Eq. Jur. § 861; Will. Eq. Jur. 341; 2 Green, Ch. 136; 1 Madd. 126. The writ of injunction may be regarded as the correlation of the writ of mandamus, lawful act, the other requiring the performance of a lawful or neglected act; Beach, Inj; § 9. Under the present practice in England, Injunction is not by writ, but the order of the court has the same effect The interdict of the Roman law resembles, in many respects, our injunction. It was used in three distinct but cognate senses. 1. It was^ applied to signify the edicts made by the proetor, declaratory of his intention to give a remedy in certain cases, chiefly to preserve or to restore possession; this interdiet was called edlctal: edictale, quod prw~ to Hi edictis proponitur, ut aciant omnea ea forma poase implurari, 2. It was used to signify his order or decree, applying the remed/ in the given case before him, and was then called decretal: decretale, quod preetor re nata implorantihua decrevit. It is this which bears a strong resemblance to the injunction of a court of equity. 3. It was used, in the last place, to signify the very remedy sought in the suit commenced under the prajtor’s edict; and thus it became the denomination of the action itself. Livingston on the Batture case; 2 Story, Eq. Jur. § 805. Mandatory injunctions command the defendant to do a particular thing. Preventive, commands him to refrain from an act. The former are resorted to rarely and are seldom allowed before a final hearing; Corning v. Nall Factory, 40 N. Y. 191; Audeuried v. R. Co., 08 Pa. 370, 8 Am. Rep. 195; 10 Vcs. 192: 20 Am. Dec. 389, note; Bailey v. Schnitzius, 45 N. J. Eq. 178, 13 Atl. 247, 16 Atl. CSO. They are not granted except to prevent a failure of justice and then only when the right is clearly established; Buettgenbach v. Gerbig, 2 Neb. (unof.) 889, 90 N. W. 654; Budd V. Camden Horse R. Co., 63 N. J. Eq. 804, 62 Atl. 1130, affirming 61 N. J. Eq. 543, 48 Atl. 1028; nor where there is unreasonable delay in the application; Mac Kintyre v, Jones, 0 Pa. Super. Ct. 543. Preliminary or interlocutory injunctions are used to restrain the party enjoined from doing or continuing to do the wrong complained of, either temporarily or during the continuance of the suit or proceeding in equity in which such 'injunction is granted, and before the rights of the parties have been settled by the decree of the court in such suit or proceeding. The sole object of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo until the merits can be heard. The status quo is the last actual peaceable uncontested status which preceded the pending controversy, and a wrongdoer cannot shelter himself behind a sudden or recently changed status, though made before the chancellor’s hand actually reached him; Fredericks v. Huber, 180 Pa. 672, 87 Atl. 90. See Rb- STBAINIMG ObDER. inary injunction already issued is made final or perpetual, by the final decree of the CQqrt, or when the rights of the parties so far as relates to the subject of the injunction are finally adjudicated and disposed of by the order or decree of the court; 2 Freem. Ch. 106; Caruthers v. Hartsfleld, 3 Yerg. (Tenn.) 366, 24 Am. Dec. 580; Kruson v. Kruson, 1 Bibb (Ky.) 184; Kerr, Inj. *12. In England, injimctions were divided into common injunctions and special injunctions; Eden, Inj. 178, n.; Will. Eq. Jur. 342. The common injunction was obtained of course when the defendant in the suit in equity was in default for not entering his appearance, or for not putting in’ his answer to the complainant’s bill within the times prescribed by the practice of the court; Story, Eq. Jur. § 892; 18 Ves. 523; Jeremy, Eq. Jur. Special Injunctions were founded upon the oath of the complainant, or other evidence of the truth of the charges contained in his bill of complaint. They were obtained upon a special application, and usually upon notice of such application given to the party whose proceedings were sought to be enjoined; Story, Eq. Jur. § 892; Jeremy, Eq. Jur. 339; 18 Ves. 522. In the federal courts and in the equity courts of most of the states the English practice of granting the common injunction has been discontinued or superseded, either by statute or by rujes of the courts; the preliminary injunctions are, therefore, all special injunctions in the courts of this country where such English practice has been superseded. When used. The Injunction is used in a great variety of cases, of which cases the following are some of the most common: to stay proceedings at law by the party enjoined; Albritton v. Bird, R. M. Charlt. (Ga.) 93; Lyles v. Ilalton, 6 Gill & J. (Md.) 122; Bell V. Cunningham, 1 Sumn. 89, Fed. Cas. No. 1,246; Gridley. v. Wynant, 23 How, (U. S.) 600, 16 L. Ed. 411; Monson v. Lawrence, 27 Conn. 579; Frith v. Roe, 23 Ga. 139;

— to restrain the transfer of stocks, of promissory notes, bills of exchange, and other evidences of debt; Story, Eq. Jur. §§ 906, 955; 2 Vern. 122; Osborn v. Bank, 9 Wheat. (U. S.) 738, 6 L, Ed. 204; Jones v. Edwards, 57 N. C. 257; Bums v. Weesner, 134 Ind. 442, 34 'N. B. 10;

— to restrain the transfer of the title to property; Morris Canal & Banking Co. v. Mayor, etc., 12 N. J. Eq. 262; Gayle v. Fattle, 14 Md, 69; Stringham v. Brown, 7 la. 33; Conant v. Warren, 6 Gray (Mass.) 662; Lee v. Simpson, 37 Fed. 12, 2