OCTOBER TERM, 1907. Opinion of the Court. HUTCHINS v. MUNN. APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. No. 16?. Ar?ed March 10. l?,--Deeidsd ? 2?, The megmlre of protection to he given by the undertaking requir? i?uing a rastralning order uader t 718, Rev. Star., is to make good the injuries inflicted upon a party o]?erving the order until it is dimotved, and such undertaking inures to the benefit of a defend?t suffedug injuries lrr?peetive of th? emlct time when t?.t party has knowled? of the pendency of the action or appears therein; nor is this protect/on denied because the only defendant sustalnin? iniur/es is a woman and the tmdertak/ng is to make ? "to the ddendant all d*m? by him suffered." Findin? of an aud/tor ?ng dama?s on an vndertaldn? should not be set aside by the court unless there h? been an error of htw or a con- cludon of fact unwarranted by the ev/dence. The owner of a house in Washington, D.C., who was prevented by ir? order from completing alterations during the w/nter months, the house meanwhile ! eing only partially habitable, was held, in this case, to have lost the entire u?e of the house and to be entitled to recover on the undertakin? the reasonable rental value of the house for the season. ?8 App. O. C. 27L THE facts are stated in the opinion. Mr. Eden C. Br?, ?th whom Mr. C/?ren? A. B?/m?en?rg and Mr. F. W?ller Br?/e?rg were on the brief, for appellants. Mr. Samuel Maddox, ?qth whom Mr. H. Prescott Gatley'was on the brief, for appellee. MR. JVSTICE MooDY delivered the opinion of the court. This is an appeal from a judg'ment of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia. The appellee Carrie L. Munn was
�
