THE GREEN BAG tion and the party against whom the injunction is asked, upon a bill stating a case within its gen eral equitable jurisdiction, the court has authority to decide whether an injunction should issue and the character of such injunction, and any error on its part in improperly issuing the injunction or in issuing an injunction broader than is justified by the bill, is merely ground for reversal on appeal or writ of error, and is not available to defeat contempt proceedings for a violation of the in junction as issued. On the merits it is declared that a labor union which ordered a strike and which through its officers and members engaged in picketing and intimidating and threatening non-union employees, assaulting some and frightening others, was prop erly adjudged guilty of contempt in violating an injunction restraining it from interfering with the business of their former employers, and from in timidating other employees from doing their work or accepting employment. In support of the holding the court cites Doremus v. Hennessy, 176 Ill. 608, 52 N. E. 924, 54 N. E. 524; Beck v. Railway Teamsters' Protective Union, 118 Mich. 497, 77 N. W. 13; Vegelahn v. Guntner, 167 Mass. 92, 44 N. E. 1077.
sworn general denial of all the allegations of the petition, and it is further held that he was guilty of contempt in aiding and abetting the defendants in the cause in violating the order of the court and willfully obstructing its process. INSURANCE. (Forfeiture.) Ky. — The right of a life insurance company to summarily enforce a forfeiture through the mediumship of an assign ment of the policy as security for a loan is denied in Mutual Life Ins. Co. of Kentucky i1. Twyman, 92 S. W. 335. The insured in a paid-up policy borrowed money from the company and assigned the policy as collateral by an assignment author izing the company on the non-payment of the debt to cancel the policy. Under this contract the company is denied the right, on the failure of insured to pay the note, to enforce its. interest in the policy as collateral, by summarily canceling it. It is held that the company must resort to equity to enforce its rights based on the surrender of the policy, determined in the manner provided by the statutes of Kentucky, and that on the court finding that such value exceeded the debt, the sum left over should be ordered to be paid to insured or used for the purchase of paid-up insurance as the insured might elect.
INJUNCTION. (Violation — Persons Liable.) INSURANCE. (Liability.) Ohio. — A rather U. S. C. C. N. D. Ill. — In Employers' Teaming peculiar variety of contract is held not to constitute Company v. Teamsters' Joint Council, 141 Fed. an insurance policy, in State v. Laylin, 76 X. E. 679, a person not a party to an injunction suit is 567. A corporation was chartered to defend held liable to punishment for contempt for viola physicians and surgeons against civil prosecution tion of the injunction. An order was issued in a for malpractice, and in prosecution of its business suit of equity against a labor union for an in issued and sold to members of the medical profes junction restraining defendants, their agents or sion a contract whereby it agreed to defend the servants, and all other persons aiding, abetting, holder of the contract against any suit for mal or acting in concert with them or having knowl practice that might be brought against him during edge of the order, from interfering with or in any the term specified in the contract, but did not manner injuring, obstructing, or stopping the assume or agree to assume or pay any judgment business of complainant, which was a teaming that might be rendered against the insured in the company. suit. Such a corporation,, it is held, is not engaged The order was widely published, copies were in the business of insurance, nor is the contract an posted in public places and placed on each side insurance contract. Irrespective of the question of all of complainant's wagons, which also bore thus decided as to form of contract, it is declared large signs calling attention thereto. The wagons that a corporation created for the purpose of were also operated under armed guards. engaging in and carrying on such a business is not In proceedings for contempt for violation of the entitled to receive from the Secretary of State a order, it was shown that respondent who was not certificate authorizing it to transact its business, a party to the suit was one of the most active in for the reason that the business is professional a mob which attacked one of complainant's wagons business, which the statutes of Ohio expressly so placarded and guarded, and that he incited prohibit corporations from carrying on. others to violence and himself threw stones at the teamsters and guards, and assaulted one of the INTOXICATING LIQUOR. (Medicinal prepara guards while the latter was in charge of the police. tions.) Ark. — Not every universal panacea can The court holds on these facts that respondent be retailed with impunity in Arkansas. Stelle v. must be deemed to have had knowledge of the State, 92 S. W. 530. There the court has sustained order, notwithstanding the fact that he filed a a conviction for selling intoxicating liquors with
