LEGAL PHASES OF COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATIONS *73 
In another North Carolina case 9 the court refused an injunction 
because the association had not settled with the member in full for 
a crop previously delivered and it appeared that the member was 
obliged " to raise money for the necessary supplies of himself and 
family." In refusing the injunction the court called attention to the 
rule that under the general principles of equity " an injunction will 
not usually be granted or continued where it will do more mischief 
and work greater injury than the wrong which it is asked to redress." 
In Tennessee, Kansas, and Kentucky the courts have required 
members of associations to deliver their products thereto (although 
the holders of mortgages on the crops protested) where it appeared 
that the holders of the mortgages took them with notice that the 
members were under contract to deliver their products to the asso- 
ciation for marketing. 10 
In a Nebraska case alleged mismanagement of the association was 
held to be no defense to a suit for an injunction. 11 
Under normal circumstances, the statutory provisions under dis- 
cussion would appear to be virtually mandatory on the court 
concerned. 
Prior to 1923 the Supreme Court of California refused to enjoin 
a producer from disposing of eggs outside the association because 
of a code provision which forbade the issuance of injunctions to 
restrain the violation of contracts that could not be enforced spe- 
cifically. 12 A statute was enacted in California in 1923 specifically 
giving cooperative associations the right to the equitable remedies 
in question. 13 The courts of California have always upheld the right 
of cooperative associations to recover liquidated damages. 14 
The courts have frequently pointed out the reasons why a judg- 
ment in favor of an association for a definite amount of money 
would not adequately compensate it for the loss suffered through 
the failure of a member to deliver his products. 15 In the case last 
cited the court said: 
Judgment for the loss of the profits which would have accrued to the asso- 
ciation solely from the resale of the products withheld by a breaching member 
would not necessarily measure the damages to the association. If one member 
may breach his contract with impunity, so might others. With each withdrawal 
a larger proportionate share of the expenses would fall upon the remaining 
members. It would be impossible to compute the losses which would thus 
progressively accrue to the association and its remaining members; nor would 
this diminution of the proportionate returns, if they could be computed, meas- 
ure the full extent of the wrong to the association. The influence of the con- 
duct of the breaching member would inevitably tend to promote further 
withdrawals and impair the ability of the association to secure new members. 
If indulged in by a sufficient number it would impair the effective existence 
of the association if, in fact, it did not bring about a dissolution. It is plain 
that an unrestrained breach of member contracts would produce irreparable 
injury to the association, and, through it, to each of the remaining members. 
9 Tobacco Growers' Co-op. Ass'n v. Bland, 187 N. C. 356, 121 S. E. 636. 
10 Tobacco Growers' Co-op. Ass'n v. Dunn, 150 Tenn. 614, 266 S. W. 308 ; Kansas 
Wheat Growers' Ass'n v. Floyd et al. and Kansas Wheat Growers' Ass'n v. Robben et al., 
116 Kan. 522, 227 P. 336 ; Redford et al. v. Burley Tobacco Growers' Co-op. Ass'n, 205 
Ky. 515, 266 S. W. 24. 
"Nebraska Wheat Growers' Ass'n v. Smith, 115 Neb. 177, 212 N. W. 39. 
12 Poultry Producers of Southern California, Inc., v. Barlow, 189 Cal. 278, 208 P. 
93; Poultry Producers of Central California v. Murphy, 64 Cal. App. 450, 221 P. 962; 
Poultry Producers of Central California v. Nilsson, 197 Cal. 245. 239 P. 1086. 
ls Colina Vegetable Ass'n v. Bonetti, Cal. App. , 267 P. 172. 
14 See California cases cited above. 
15 Kansas Wheat Growers' Ass'n v. Schulte, 113 Kan. 672, 216 P. 311; Dark Tobacco 
Growers' Co-op. Ass'n v Dunn, 150 Tenn. 614, 266 S. W. 308 ; Manchester Dairy System, 
Inc., I?. Hayward, 82 N. H. 193. 132 A. 12. 
