HUTCHINS t. MUNN. ?09 U. 8. Opera'on o? t? Court. safd that, although the court had, as a condition of i?uing the restr?inlng order, exacted an undertaking to indemnify her, she cannot recover upon it, because she was beyond the reach of the process of the court. But this view is based upon a rais- conception of a restraining order and the undertaking to make good the injury resulting from its wrongful use. The nature of the order and undertaking received the ?onsideration of this court in Ho?ghtor? v. Meyer, 208 U.S. 149. The authority for the issue of such an order was shown to be �8 of the Revised Statutes. This section contemplates, in 'cases where irreparable injury may be a?ticipated if the status q'uo be not preserved, the issue without hogice of a temporary restraining order, to be en- forced only until kn order to show cause on the motion for an in- junction can be heard and decided. The order may be granted with or without security to the defendants, in the discretion of th? court. In the case a? bar ?be order accomplished its purpose and instantly arrested the progrees of the work by restraining those who were engaged in it. The injury against which the undertaking was designed to indemnify was incurred by Mrs. Munn, and we find nothing in the facts of this case which takes away the remedy on the undertaking exacted by the court for her protection. It is true tha? she did not learn of the issue of the restraining order for two weeks. But counsel, though without express authority, undertook to guard her interests; and moved to discharge the order on August, 17. With all reasonable speed authority to file an answer was ob- tained and acted upon, the cause was heard and the restraining order dissolved. In the meantime the restraining order was obeyed by all, had its full effect, and inflicted its full injury upon Mrs. Munn's rights. Under these circumstances it is beyond doubt tha? she is entitled to recover against those who undertook to make good her injuries, the damages which she. sustained. It is enough that th? order was obtained without notice to her, that it was wrongfully sued out, that it wa? ob- served until dissolved, and that it inflicted injury upon her rights. These facts, irrespective of the exact time when she
�
