11. Rival claimants to public office. 12. Mandatory injunctions not favored. 13. Restraining order in equity should be definite and certain. 14. Petition for injunction, when sufficient. 15-17. Discretion of court.-Granting a temporary injunction pendente lite. 18. California rule. 19. Dissolving temporary injunction.-Rule, 20. Exception to the rule. 21. Motion to dissolve injunction. 22. Dissolving injunction upon appeal. 23. Decision on merits not permitted on motion to dissolve. 24. Temporary writ of injunction improvidently issued. 1. Nature of remedy.-An injunction is an extraordinary remedy, and does not follow as of right, even when a case of wrongful act is made out on one side and consequent injury on the other. The court will always consider whether it will not do a greater injury by enjoining an act than would result from permitting the act to continue and leaving the party injured to his remedy in damages at the hands of a jury: FerryLeary L. Co. v. Holt & Jeffery, 53 Wash. 584, 102 Pac. 445, 446. It 2. Rights protected by statute not abridged.-Courts of equity do not have jurisdiction to abridge rights which are specially protected under the statute, nor to ignore the limitations imposed upon the exercise of such remedies. has therefore been held that the plaintiff should not be granted an injunction in equity where this remedy, if effected, would deprive the defendant of his possession without the statutory notice guaranteed him under the statute: Hall v. Henninger (Iowa), 121 N. W. 6, 8. 3. Equity will not interfere by injunction, unless the threatened wrong is substantial and irreparable in damages: Tifft v. State Medical Inst., 53 Wash. 365, 101 Pac. 1081, 1082. 4. "Plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law" precludes injunction.-It is a rule in equity peculiarly applicable to actions in which injunctions are sought that such relief will not be granted where there is a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law: Hall v. Henninger (Iowa), 121 N. W. 6, 8; Forbes v. Carl, 125 Iowa 317, 101 N. W. 100; Home S. & T. Co. v. Hicks, 116 Iowa 114, 89 N. W. 103; Ewing v. Webster City, 103 Iowa 226, 72 N. W. 511: Waterloo v. Waterloo St. R. Co., 71 Iowa 193, 32 N. W. 329. 5. Under the Iowa statute, it is well settled that where the relief asked is such relief as equity only can grant, the plaintiff's action will be dismissed if the facts are not such as to entitle him to that relief, although he might have a remedy in a proper action at law: Hall v. Henninger (Iowa), 121 N. W. 6, 10: Cooper v. Cedar Rapids, 112 Iowa 367, 83 N. W. 1050; Kelly v. Andrews, 94 Iowa 484, 62 N. W. 853; Hartwig v. Iles, 131 Iowa 501, 109 N. W. 18. 6. Where the remedy is by action of ejectment, it is not the province of a court of equity, by decree in a proceeding for an injunction to attempt to disturb the possession of defendants where such possession is actual, open, and notorious, and had been such for a long time prior to the commencement of the proceedings in equity: Waddingham v. Robledo, 6 N. Mex. 347, 28 Pac. 663, 672. 7. Remedy as against party not a trespasser. Where the defendant is not a trespasser, but is in the actual and continued possession of the real property in controversy, plaintiff misconceives his remedy where he applies for an injunction. In such a case the plaintiff should bring an action at law to recover possession: Hall v. Henninger (Iowa), 121 N. W. 6, 10, (Weaver, J., and Evans, C. J., dissenting, and holding that the facts in this case disclosed that defendant was a trespasser and that a decree for а permanent injunction should stand). 8. Injunction lies to restrain a board of supervisors from passing ordinances working an irreparable injury: Spring Valley Water Works v. Bartlett, 16 Fed. 615, 8 Sawy. 555. 9. Injunction will be granted at suit of stockholder to restrain unauthorized action of exchange where the same is prejudicial to his rights as a stockholder: Kolff v. St. Paul Fuel Ex., 48 Minn. 215, 50 N. W. 1036. 10. When injunction will not lie.-Absence of substantial injury.-Injunction will not lie at the instance of one board of trade against another to restrain the unlawful exercise of power where former has suffered no particular and substantial injury: Jones v. Board of Trade, 52 Kan. 95, 34 Pac. 453. 11. Rival claimants to public office.Injunction is not the proper remedy to determine the rights of rival claimants to the possession of a public elective office: Hotchkiss v. Keck, 84 Neb. 545, 121 N. W. 579, 580. 12. While mandatory injunctions are not favored by the courts, they are nevertheless permissible in certain special cases: Magpie G. M. Co. v. Sherman (S. Dak.), 121 N. W. 770, 773, (remedy held permissible in this action to restrain the defendant as managing agent of the corporation from doing certain wrongful acts and things complained of during the pendency of proceedings for an accounting for moneys alleged to have been misapplied, or fraudulently squandered or disposed of, or converted to the defendant's own use). 13. The restraining order in equity should be definite and certain in its terms, and should point out to the defendants with reasonable certainty the specific acts which they are required to refrain from doing: Waddingham v. Robledo, 6 N. Mex. 347, 28 Pac. 663, 673. 14. A petition for injunction to be sufficient, must state facts which show that the plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law; and if the injunction be denied, that he will suffer irreparable injury. A petition which merely pleads the bald conclusions is insufficient. The formal allegations in the words of the statute are properly used only when pleaded in connection with facts which taken as true would constitute annoyance, inconvenience, or irreparable injury: McKeever v. Buker, 80 Kan. 201, 101 Pac. 991. unless the same was granted without authority: Severns v. English (Okla.), 101 Pac. 750, 754, citing Reaves v. Oliver, 3 Okla. 62, 41 Pac. 353. 16. The matter of granting or continuing a temporary writ of injunction rests largely in the sound discretion of the trial court: Walker v. Stone, 70 Iowa 103, 30 N. W. 39; Swan v. City of Indianola, 142 Iowa 731, 121 N. W. 547, 549. 17. Discretion is a legal one.-The discretion exercised by a court in granting or continuing a temporary writ of injunction is a legal one, and, if not based upon sufficient grounds, will be reversed on appeal: Swan v. City of Indianola, 142 Iowa 731, 121 N. W. 547, 549; Sinnett v. Moles, 38 Iowa 25; Stewart v. Johnston, 44 Iowa 435; Fuson v. Connecticut I. Co., 53 Iowa 609, 6 N. W. 7. 18. California rule.-It is a settled rule in California that an order granting or dissolving an injunction is a matter of discretion with the lower court, and that such discretion will not be interfered with by a reviewing court unless it clearly appears that such discretion has been abused: Long v. Newman, 10 Cal. App. 430, 102 Pac. 534, 538. 19. Dissolving temporary injunction.Rule. The general rule as to a temporary injunction is that where all the material allegations of the petition for an injunction are fully and satisfactorily denied in the answer, the preliminary injunction will be dissolved: Swan v. City of Indianola, 142 Iowa 731, 121 N. W. 547, 549; Walker v. Stone, 70 Iowa 103, 30 N. W. 39; Carrothers v. Newton Co., 61 Iowa 681, 17 N. W. 43; Russell v. Wilson, 37 Iowa 337. 20. An exception to the rule is made where fraud is the gravamen of the action, or it is apparent that by a dissolution of the injunction the party will lose all benefit to accrue from final success in his suit: Johnston v. Railroad, 58 Iowa 537, 12 N. W. 576; Fargo v. Ames, 45 Iowa 494; Stewart v. Johnston, 44 Iowa 435; Wingert v. City of Tipton, 134 Iowa 97, 108 N. W. 1035, 111 N. W. 432; Sinnett v. Moles, 38 Iowa 25. 21. A motion to dissolve an injunction is properly granted where the only allegations of the complaint in the suit are made on information and belief, and these averments are positively contra dicted by certain affidavits filed on the motion to dissolve, and where the complaint is not supported by counter-affidavits: Carstens v. City of Fond du Lac, 137 Wis. 465, 119 N. W. 117, 121, citing Dinehart v. Town of Lafayette, 19 Wis. 677; Schoeffler v. Schwarting, 17 Wis. 30; Smith v. Appleton, 19 Wis. 468; Tainter v. Lucas, 29 Wis. 375; Pittelkow v. Herman, 94 Wis. 666, 69 N. W. 805. 22. Dissolving injunction upon appeal. -If upon the entire record nothing but questions of law are involved, and it appears that the injunction was improvidently issued, it will be dissolved upon appeal: Burlington Co. v. Dey, 82 Iowa 312, 48 N. W. 98, 12 L. R. A. 436, 31 Am. St. Rep. 477; Gossard v. Crosby, 132 Iowa 155, 109 N. W. 483, 6 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1115; Swan v. City of Indianola, 142 Iowa 731, 121 N. W. 547, 549. 23. Decision on merits not permitted on motion to dissolve.-An attempt to obtain a decision by summary action upon the merits of the case will not be permitted upon a motion to dissolve supported by affidavits only: Wingert v. City of Tipton, 134 Iowa 97, 108 N. W. 1035, 111 N. W. 432. 24. A temporary writ of injunction Improvidently issued in behalf of a plaintiff not without fault is properly dissolved and dismissed: Newby v. Laurence, 84 Neb. 622, 121 N. W. 965. § 428. Code provisions § 429. Affidavits . CHAPTER CXXIV. Attachment and Garnishment. Form No. 1021. For attachment against residents. (Common form-Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Page 1673 1688 1688 Form No. 1022. For attachment against non-resident, upon a (Nebraska.) 1689 Form No. 1023. For attachment against resident. Form No. 1025. ..... 1690 ... 1690 Form No. 1026. For attachment against defendant about to § 430. Undertakings . .... Form No. 1027. Undertaking on attachment Form No. 1029. Undertaking given to procure an order to dis- ... 1691 1692 1692 1693 1693 1694 1694 ... Form No. 1031. Return of sheriff to writ of attachment.... 1695 Form No. 1032. Notice of garnishment [or attachment] of moneys [etc.] owing [or belonging] to defendant 1695 Form No. 1033. Certificate by sheriff of execution of writ of 1695 Form No. 1034. Answer of garnishee to writ.... 1696 1696 Form No. 1037. Order releasing attachment Form No. 1039. Order for the sale of attached property.... 1697 ...... 1697 1697 1698 1698 § 433. Annotations § 428. CODE PROVISIONS. Attachment-When and in what cases may issue. California, § 537. The plaintiff, at the time of issuing the summons, or at any time afterward, may have the property of the defendant attached, as security for the satisfaction of any judgment that may be recovered, unless the defendant give security to pay such judgment, as in this chapter provided, in the following cases: 1. In an action upon a contract, express or implied, for the direct payment of money, where the contract is made or is payable in this state, and is not secured by any mortgage or lien upon real or personal property, or any pledge of personal property; or, if originally so secured, such security has, without any act of the plaintiff, or the person to whom the security was given, become valueless. 2. In an action upon a contract, express or implied, against a defendant not residing in this state. 3. In an action against a defendant, not residing in this state, to recover a sum of money as damages, arising from an injury to property in this state, in consequence of negligence, fraud, or other wrongful act. (Kerr's Cyc. Code Civ. Proc.) The following statutes treat of the same subject as the foregoing. Where the provisions differ materially from the above, a further reference is made in a lettered note succeeding and the difference there shown: ■ Alaska, Ann. Codes 1907, C. C. P. (Carter), § 135. b Arizona, Rev. Stats. 1901, ¶¶ 332, 335. © Arkansas, Dig. of Stats. 1904 (Kirby), § 344. d Colorado, Rev. Stats. 1908, C. C. P. § 97. Hawaii, Rev. Laws 1905, § 1706; Laws 1905, p. 184, § 2. Idaho, Rev. Codes 1909, § 4302. glowa, Ann. Code 1897, § 3876. h Kansas, Gen. Stats. 1905 (Dassler), §§ 5072, 5125. 1 Minnesota, Rev. Laws 1905, § 4215. 1 Missouri, Ann. Stats. 1906, § 366. k Montana, Rev. Codes 1907, §§ 6656, 6658. 1 Nebraska, Comp. Stats. Ann. 1909, §§ 6741, 6787; Ann. Stats. 1909 (Cobbey), §§ 1171, 1216. m Nevada, Comp. Laws Ann. 1900 (Cutting), § 3218. New Mexico, Comp. Laws 1897, § 2685, sub-secs. 182-184, 206. ⚫ North Dakota, Rev. Codes 1905, §§ 6938, 6939. P Oklahoma, Rev. and Ann. Stats. 1903 (Wilson), §§ 4365, 4417; Comp. Laws 1909 (Snyder), §§ 5701, 5753. a Oregon, Ann. Codes and Stats. 1902 (Bel. & Cot.), § 296. r South Dakota, Rev. Codes 1903, C. C. P. § 205. s Texas, Civ. Stats. 1897 (Sayles), Arts. 186-189. t Utah, Comp. Laws 1907, § 3064. u Washington, Code 1910 (Rem. & Bal.), §§ 647, 649. ▾ Wisconsin, Stats. 1898 (San. & Ber. Ann.), §§ 2729, 2730. w Wyoming, Rev. Stats. 1899, §§ 3988, 4031. a Alaska, C. C. P. § 135, same as Cal. C. C. P. § 537, down to include the word "money" in second line of sub. 1, then omit the remainder of sub. 1 and substitute the words "and which is not secured by mortgage, lien, or pledge upon real or personal property, or, if so secured, when such security has been rendered nugatory by the act of the defendant." Sub. 2, same as sub. 2, Cal. C. C. P. § 537, except at end change "this state" to "the district." Omit sub. 3 of Cal. C. C. P. § 537. b1 Arizona, ¶ 332. The plaintiff at the time of filing his complaint, or at any time afterward, may have the property of the defendant attached, as security for the satisfaction of any judgment that may be recovered, unless the defendant give security to pay such judgment, as in this chapter provided, in the following cases: 1. In an action upon a contract, express or implied, for the direct payment of money, where the contract is made or is payable in this territory, and is not fully secured by any mortgage or lien upon real or personal property, or any pledge of personal property; or, if originally so secured, such security has without any act of the plaintiff, or the persons to whom the security was given, become valueless. 2. When any suit be pending for damages, and the defendant is about to dispose of or remove his property beyond the jurisdiction of the court in which the action is pending for the pur pose of defeating the collection of the judgment. 3. In an action upon a contract, express or implied, against a defendant not residing in this territory or a foreign corporation doing business in this territory. b2 Arizona, ¶ 335, provides for attachment in certain cases where debt is not yet due. c Arkansas, § 344. The plaintiff in a civil action may, at or after the commencement thereof, have an attachment against the property of the defendant in the cases and upon the grounds hereinafter stated, as a security for the satisfaction of such judgment as may be recovered: First. In an action for the recovery of money, where the action is against1. A defendant or several defendants who, or some one of whom, is a foreign corporation or non-resident of the state; or, 2. Who has been absent therefrom four months; or, 3. Has departed from this state with intent to defraud his creditors; or, 4. Has left the county of his residence to avoid the service of a summons; or, 5. So conceals himself that a summons can not be served upon him; or, 6. Is about to remove, or has removed, his property, or a material part thereof, out of this state, not leaving enough therein to satisfy the plaintiff's claim or the claim of said defendant's creditors; or, |