A subsequent act of Congress gives the Federal courts jurisdiction of such a suit when the plaintiff has registered his trademark for use in foreign commerce or commerce with the Indian tribes, and the defendant has used such registered trade-mark in such commerce.9 In Eng § 219. Injunctions to prevent the Opening of Letters. land an injunction has been issued to prevent the tenants of a building formerly occupied by the members of another firm from opening letters addressed to the latter.1 § 220. Injunctions to compel the Performance or prevent the Breach of Contracts not affecting Land. - The performance of a contract not affecting lands will be enforced in equity by means of an injunction when, and only when, a judgment for damages would be no adequate remedy for its breach; and it does not require a purely personal act which it would be impossible for the court to enforce.2 The inadequacy of the remedy at law which will entitle one to specific performance of a contract may, it has been held, be proved by the fact that the damages in money cannot be ascertained. In some cases an injunction may be obtained to restrain a defendant from violating a negative promise contained in a contract, although the court has no power specifically to enforce the affirmative promises contained therein. Thus, when opera singers had contracted to sing at the plaintiffs' theatre and nowhere else, injunctions have been granted to restrain them from singing in rival establishments, although they could not be compelled to sing for the plaintiffs. The rule has been thus stated by Judge Lowell: "I think the fair result of the later cases may be thus expressed: If the case is one in which the negative remedy of injunction will do substantial justice between the parties, by obliging the defendant either to carry out his contract or lose all benefit of the breach, and the remedy at law is inadequate, and there is no reason of policy against it, the court will interfere to restrain conduct which is contrary to the 921 St. at L. 502 (1 Supp. U. S. R. S. 606); Graveley v. Graveley, 42 Fed. R. 264. § 219. 1 Scheile v. Brakell, 11 W. R. 796. § 220. 1 Buxton v. Lister, 3 Atk. 383; Robinson v. Cathcart, 2 Cranch C. C. 590; Tayloe v. Merchants' Fire Ins. Co., 9 How. 390; Very v. Levy, 13 How. 345. 2 Clarke v. Price, 2 Wilson Ch. Cases, 157; Mair v. Himalaya Tea Co., L. R. 1 Eq. 411. 3 Adderley v. Dixon, 1 Sim. & Stu. 607; Sullivan v. Tuck, 1 Md. Ch. 59; Finley v. Aiken, 1 Grant's Cases (Pa.), 83; Bispham's Eq § 369. 4 Lumley v. Wagner, 1 De G., M. & G. 604; McCaull v. Braham, 16 Fed. R. 37. contract, although it may be unable to enforce a specific performance of it."5 But where the affirmative promise cannot be specifically enforced, the court will not import into it a negative covenant, neither expressly nor by a fair implication contained therein." § 221. Injunctions to compel the Delivery of Personal Property tortiously withheld. Under very extraordinary circumstances, equity will interfere to compel by injunction the delivery or return of letters, documents, or other articles of such a unique character that it would be impossible to replace them, when they are tortiously withheld from their rightful owners.1 § 222. Injunctions authorized by Statute. The statutes of the United States also authorize an injunction in the following cases, besides those arising from infringements of patents and copyrights: "Any person who considers himself aggrieved by any warrant of distress issued under the" provisions of the statutes authorizing one to be issued by the Solicitor of the Treasury against an officer in default for not accounting for and paying over public money received by him, "may prefer a bill of complaint to any district judge of the United States, setting forth therein the nature and extent of the injury of which he complains; and thereupon the judge may grant an injunction to stay proceeds on such warrant altogether, or for so much thereof as the nature of the case requires. But no injunction shall issue till the party applying for it gives bond with sufficient security, in a sum to be prescribed by the judge, for the performance of such judgment as may be awarded against him; nor shall the issuing of such injunction in any manner impair the lien produced by the issuing of the warrant. And the same proceedings shall be had in such injunction as in other cases, except that no answer shall be necessary on the part of the United States; and if, upon dissolving the injunction, it appears to the satisfaction of the judge that the application for the injunction was merely 5 Singer Co. v. Union Co., 1 Holmes, 253, 258. See also Goddard v. Wilde, 17 Fed. R. 845; W. U. Tel. Co. v. Union Pacific Ry. Co., 3 Fed. R. 423; W. U. Tel. Co. v. St. Joseph & W. Ry. Co., 3 Fed. R. 430. 6 Clarke v. Price, 2 Wilson Ch. C. 157; Pickering v. Bishop of Ely, 2 Y. & C. Ch. C. 249; Johnson v. Shrewsbury & Birmingham Ry. Co., 3 De G., M. & G. 914; Bispham's Eq. § 464; Kerr on Injunctions, 524. § 221. Pusey v. Pusey, 1 Vern. 273; Duke of Somerset v. Cookson, 3 P. Wms. 389; Clarke v. White, 12 Pet. 178; Prince Albert v. Strange, 1 Macn. & G. 25, 42; McGowin v. Remington, 12 Pa. St. 56. for delay, the judge may add to the lawful interest assessed on all sums found due against the complainant such damages as, with such lawful interest, shall not exceed the rate of ten per centum a year. Such injunction may be granted or dissolved by the district judge either in or out of court."1 "When the district judge refuses to grant an injunction to stay proceedings on a distress warrant, as aforesaid, or dissolves such injunction after it is granted, any person who considers himself aggrieved by the decision in the premises may lay before the circuit justice, or circuit judge of the circuit within which such district lies, a copy of the proceeding had before the district judge; and thereupon the circuit justice or circuit judge may grant an injunction, or permit an appeal, as the case may be, if, in his opinion, the equity of the case requires it. The same proceedings, subject to the same conditions, shall be had upon such injunction in the circuit court as are prescribed in the district court."2 "Whenever an association against which proceedings have been instituted, on account of any alleged refusal to redeem its circulating notes as aforesaid, denies having failed to do so, it may, at any time within ten days after it has been notified of the appointment of an agent, as provided in section fifty-two hundred and twenty-seven" of the Revised Statutes of the United States, "apply to the nearest circuit, or district, or territorial court of the United States to enjoin further proceedings in the premises; and such court, after citing the Comptroller of the Currency to show cause why further proceedings should not be enjoined, and after the decision of the court or finding of a jury that such association has not refused to redeem its circulating notes, when legally presented, in the lawful money of the United States, shall make an order enjoining the Comptroller, and any receiver acting under his direction, from all further proceedings on account of such alleged refusal." A district attorney of the United States acting under the direction of the Attorney-General may upon a petition obtain an injunction to restrain a contract, combination in the form of a trust or otherwise, or a conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce, or a monopoly of any part of trade or commerce among the several States or with foreign nations. Compliance with the § 222. 1 U. S. R. S. § 3636. 2 U. S. R. S. § 3637. U. S. R. S. § 5237. Inter-State Commerce Act may also in certain cases be compelled by an injunction.5 § 223. When Injunctions will not Issue. - As a general rule, it may be stated that an injunction will not issue at the prayer of one who will suffer no pecuniary injury from the act which he wishes to prevent. Thus, one will not be granted at the suit of a State to prevent the invasion of a purely political right; 2 or of adjacent property owners and church members to prevent a railroad from outraging their religious feelings by running cars upon Sunday; nor at the suit of minister of the gospel to prevent the use of his building for theatrical purposes, under a lease the validity of which he disputes. The Emperor of Austria and King of Hungary, however, was allowed an injunction to prevent Kossuth and his associates from manufacturing in England paper currency not purporting to be issued by imperial authority, intended for circulation in Hungary, upon the ground that his property rights were thereby injured. An injunction will not issue to prevent an injury which is not actually threatened to thecomplainant. Thus an injunction will not be granted to prevent an injury to a navigable stream, at the suit of an individual who is not engaged in navigating the same;7 nor, at the suit of a coupon holder who is not liable to the payment of taxes to a State, to prevent the State officers from refusing to receive his coupons, when tendered by others to whom he has agreed to assign them for the payment of their taxes, in pursuance of a contract made by the State with its creditors and their successors.8 "No court sits to determine questions of law in thesi."9 A threat of irreparable injury to a right actually enjoyed and exercised by the complainant, or acts indicating a preparation to commit such a wrong, are, however, always a ground for the issue of an injunction.10 And after a defendant has once infringed a patent v. 5 24 St. at L. 380; 25 St. at L. 855; Interstate Commerce Commission Baltimore & O. R. Co., 43 Fed. R. 37. § 223. 1 High on Injunctions, § 20. 2 Georgia v. Stanton, 6 Wall. 50. 7 Spooner v. McConnell, 1 McLean, 337. See also Mason v. Rollins, 2 Biss. 99. Compare Works v. Junction R. R., 5 McLean, 425. 8 Virginia Coupon Cases, Marye v. 8 Sparkawk v. Union P. R. R. Co., 54 Parsons, 114 U. S. 325. Pa. St. 401. 4 Bodwell v. Crawford, 26 Kan. 292. 5 Emperor of Austria v. Day, 2 Giff 628; 8. c. on appeal, 3 De G., F. & J. 217. 6 Slessinger v. Buckingham, 17 Fed. R. 454. VOL. I. - 24 9 Mr. Justice Matthews in Virginia Coupon Cases, Marye v. Parsons, 114 U. S. 325, 330. 19 St. Louis v. Knapp Co., 104 U. S. 658; Sherman . Nutt, 35 Fed. R. 149; Butz Thermo-Electric Regulator Co. v. owned by the plaintiff, it seems that the court will usually enjoin him from doing so in the future, even though he swears that he has no intention of doing so again; unless in addition to so swearing he shows that he has paid all damages occasioned by his infringement, and has desisted from it.11 The Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York has refused to grant a preliminary injunction to restrain an obstruction to navigation in a navigable channel coming up from the Bay of New York, caused by a structure projecting from the New Jersey shore.12 An injunction cannot be issued against the United States; 13 nor against an officer to interfere with the exercise of his discretion; 14 nor, it has been suggested, against an officer of the United States to prevent the infringement of a patent by him while in the exercise of his official duties.15 The Revised Statutes provide that "No suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax" imposed by the United States for purposes of internal revenue, "shall be maintained in any court." 16 Under this provision, it has been held that wherever a tax is imposed by a person in office having authority over the assessment of taxes for the United States, and acting under color of a statute, no injunction will be issued to restrain its collection, no matter how erroneous the assessment may be, and although the person against whom the assessment is made does not own the property taxed.17 "It is sufficient that a statute has authorized the assessor to entertain the general subject of taxation; that it was in fact entertained, and a judgment, lawful or unlawful, was rendered concerning it." 18 It seems that the unconstitutionality of the statute imposing the tax will not Jacobs Electric Co., 36 Fed. R. 191; McArthur v. Kelly, 5 Ohio, 139; Frearson v. Loe, L. R. 9 Ch. D. 48. See also Piek v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 6 Biss. 177. 11 Jenkins v. Greenwald, 1 Bond, 126; s. c. 2 Fisher, 37; Sickels v. Mitchell, 3 Blatchf. 548; Poppenhusen v. New York Gutta Percha Comb Co., 4 Blatchf. 184; Celluloid Manuf. Co. v. Arlington Manuf. Co., 34 Fed. R. 324. Walker v. Smith, 21 How. 579; McElrath v. McIntosh, 1 Law Repr. (N. s.) 399. 15 James v. Campbell, 104 U. S. 356; Hollister v. Benedict & B. Manaf. Co., 113 U. S. 59, 67. 16 U. S. R. S. § 3224. 17 Kensett v. Stivers, 10 Fed. R. 517; Pullan v. Kinsinger, 2 Abb. U. S. 94; Howland v. Soule, Deady, 413; Delaware R. Co. v. Prettyman, 17 Int. Rev. Rec. 99; Alkan v. Bean, 23 Int. Rev. Rec. 351; Kis 12 Atlantic Dredging Co. v. Bergen singer v. Bean, 7 Biss. 60; United States Neck Ry. Co., 44 Fed. R. 208. 18 United States v. McLemore, 4 How. 286; Hill v. United States, 9 How. 386. 14 Mississippi v. Johnson, 4 Wall. 475; v. Black, 11 Blatchf. 538. But see Frayser v. Russell, 3 Hughes, 227. 18 Emmons, J., in Pullan v. Kinsinger, 2 Abb. U. S. 94, 99. |