74 BULLETIN 110 6, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 
Owing to the need for prompt action, the law usually permits 
courts that exercise equity powers to issue a restraining order with- 
out notice to the defendant, upon the submission of a verified com- 
plaint, on its face showing applicant entitled thereto. On the 
issuance of a restraining order a copy of the complaint and order are 
served on the defendant, and he is notified of a date, usually an 
early one, on which he may show cause why he should not be en- 
joined. As a defendant or grower is usually enjoined before he has 
had an opportunity to be heard, an association, under the recent 
cooperative statutes, 16 and under the laws and principles generally 
applicable, must execute a bond to protect the grower in the event 
it should develop, on the hearing, that the court had acted improvi- 
dently. 
In a Mississippi case 17 an association was held liable on its bond 
to the extent of $100, the amount thereof, because of the erroneous 
procurement by the association of an injunction. 
In a Kentucky case 18 the restraining order issued by the court 
was dissolved on the final hearing. In the meantime the tobacco 
had been stolen. Suit was then brought on the bond, but the court 
found that the theft of the tobacco was not the natural and proximate 
result of the issuance of the restraining order and, hence, held that 
there could be no recovery on the bond. 
The terms of an injunction order should not be broader than the 
obligation of the member. 19 
A failure to comply with an injunction order or a decree for the 
specific performance of a contract causes the grower concerned to 
be in contempt of court, for which the court may fine the grower 
or send him to jail. It is the authority of a court to fine the grower 
involved or send him to jail that gives force to its orders. 
INTERFERENCE WITH MARKETING CONTRACTS 
What may cooperative associations do to prevent third persons 
from causing their members to breach their contracts? 
Independent of statute " it has been repeatedly held that, if one 
maliciously interferes in a contract between two parties and induces 
one of them to break that contract to the injury of the other, the party 
injured can maintain an action against the wrongdoer for damages." 20 
In addition, in appropriate cases, associations may enjoin persons 
who are inducing their members to breach their contracts. 
In a Wisconsin case, 21 in which a cooperative association enjoined 
a dealer in tobacco who actively and intentionally tried to induce 
16 See paragraph (b) of section 18 of the Bingham Cooperative Marketing Act of Ken- 
tucky on p. 123 of appendix. 
17 Staple Cotton Co-op. Ass'n v. Borodofsky, 143 Miss. 558. 108 So. 807 ; see also Garden 
Plain Farmers E. Co. v. Kansas Wheat Growers' Ass'n, Kan. . 276 P. 799. 
18 Burlev Tobacco Growers' Co-op. Ass'n v. Pennebaker Home for Girls, Ky. . 
299 S. W: 734. 
19 pierce Countv Dairvmen's Ass'n v. Templin, 124 Wash. 567, 215 P. 352. 
20 Monte Vista Potato Growers' Co-op. Ass'n v. Bond et al., 80 Colo. 516. 252 P. 813 ; 
Angle v. Chicago. St. Paul. Minneapolis and Omaha Railway Co., 151 U. S. 1 ; Knicker- 
bocker Ice Co. v. Gardiner Dairv Co., 107 Md. 556, 69 A. 405, 16 L. R. A. (N. S.), 746; 
Wheeler-Stenzel Co. v. American Window Glass Co., 202 Mass. 471. 89 X. E. 82, L. R. A. 
1915F 1075 : Aalfo Co., Inc.. v. Kinnev et al., N. J. , 144 A. 715. 
2i Northern Wisconsin Co-op. Tobacco Pool v. Bekkedal, 182 Wis. 571. 197 N. W. 936; 
see also Phez. Co. v. Salem Fruit Union, 103 Or. 514. 201 P. 222. 205 P. 970, 25 A. L. R. 
1000 ; Monte Vista Potato Growers' Co-op. Ass'n v. Bond et al.. 80 Colo. 516. 252 P. 813 ; 
Wilson v. Monte Vista Potato Growers' Co-op. Ass'n, S2 Colo. 428, 260 P. 1080. 
