114 HARVARD LAW REVIEW. and by the St. Louis Court of Appeals in Albers v. Merchants* Exchange.^ In the former case the defendant was compelled by an injunction, negative in form but mandatory in effect, to continue to furnish water to the plaintiff's brewery, under the terms of an existing contract, which defendant was about to violate and disregard, to the plaintiff's irreparable injury. In the latter case, the Mer- chants' Exchange had wrongfully suspended the plaintiff and were excluding him from attending the Exchange to transact his busi- ness there. A mandatory temporary injunction granted by the Circuit Court was made perpetual on final hearing, and defendant was restrained from excluding plaintiff from the privileges of the Exchange. And so it has been held that a mandatory injunction to remove a wall encroaching on another's property may be granted, and the obligation to remove placed directly on the party who caused the wall to be erected.^ In this case the wall encroached nine inches upon a narrow passageway belonging to the plaintiff, and seriously interfered with its use. It was contended that the plaintiff had an adequate remedy by ejectment. But the court said : " The sheriff might not regard it as his duty to deliver possession by taking down the wall, which would burden him with the risk of injury to other portions of defendant's building, not included within the nine inches. But in equity the obligation to remove can be placed directly on the party who caused the wall to be erected, and it frequently affords relief in such cases." The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has not adhered to the doctrine laid down by Judge Sharswood. In a recent case, where a natural gas company made a contract with the owner of glass works to supply him with gas for fuel for all purposes connected with the manufacture of his wares, so long as natural gas may con- tinue to be produced from the territory then or thereafter owned or operated by the gas company, on a bill averring that plaintiff had relied on this contract, and constructed his works for the use of natural gas only as fuel, and that the company had shut off the entire supply while the works were in operation, thereby making irreparable damage imminent, the court held that it was error to refuse a preliminary injunction mandatory to the extent of restor- 1 (1890) 39 Mo. App. 583. '■^ Baron v, Korn (1891), 127 N. Y, 224 (27 N. E. Rep. 804).
