Dеfendant Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States is a corporation organized pursuant to an Act of Congress. Its purposes are stated in that Act to be fraternal, patriotic, historical and educational. It is national in scope and is required to maintain an agent for service of process in every state in the union. Its membership consists of veterans who have served honorably as officers or enlisted men in the military forces of the United States in foreign wars. It is the parent organization of the Coolt County Council of Veterans of Foreign Wаrs of the United States. Plaintiffs, nine in number, are members of the Cook County .■ Council, and sue both as individuals and on behalf of the Council. A dispute arose bеtween the National Organization and the Cook County Council which after a hearing culminated in an order revoking the charter of the Council on October 2, 1950. The complaint alleged in substance that the order was illegal; that the Cook County Council had not received a fair hеaring; and that there was a denial of constitutional rights. Suit was filed on October 16,1950, and on the following day without notice an injunction was issued enjoining dеfendant-appellant from taking any further action to enforce cancellation either by disciplinary action or interference with employment of individual plaintiffs, or from seizing or attempting to seize any funds or property of the Cook County Council or interfering with its operations. A motion to vacate the injunction was denied December 11, 1950 and from this order defendant-appellant appeals.
The first and most important point made by defendant-appellant is that the injunction should not have been issued without notice. Other points are madе with respect to the merits of the controversy and the mandatory character of some of the provisions of the order. Howevеr, we rest our decision on the error of the court in issuing an injunction without notice. The facts set forth are not adequate to sustain such an оrder. In arriving at this conclusion, we have taken into consideration the supporting affidavits.
Concerning an order appointing a receiver without notice, the court in the case of Nusbaum v. Locke,
Even when granted upon a full and final hearing, injunctions are considered extraordinary remedies. They are more than extrаordinary when granted after notice for a temporary period without issue having been joined and a hearing had. How extraordinary then must bе the circumstances under which they should be granted without notice to the opposing party. In the most primitive concepts of justice, one of the fundamental requisites for the exercise of judicial authority over the person or property of another is notice. The exceptions to this rule are rare, indeed. They embrace cases where by a stroke of the pen, a movement of the hand, or a tour de force executed overnight the defendant intends to and can destroy the substance of the litigation and thus defeat the pоwer of the court to do justice. Caution and circumspection must be the watchwords to guide the court’s action and any doubts as to its wisdom must be resolved against the action. Only where these standards are meticulously observed will such orders survive review, for when an injunction is issued without notiсe in a case where notice should have been given, this court will reverse the order upon that ground without regard to any other question. This has been the law as laid down in decisions of this court for more than half a century.
We do not see anything in the facts presented that approaches the urgency which would require such drastic action against a corporation national in scope, presumed to bе patriotic and fraternal in purpose, and having a representative for service in every state of the union. It appears from the record that plaintiff knew who was defendant’s attorney and telephone communication with him should have been easy and praсticable. Even a telephone call from the courtroom to defendant or counsel can produce an appearance within a few minutes. While we do not suggest this as a substitute for formal notice, it is at least a desirable alternative to no notice at all. All the judges of this court have sat in chancery and know that when such informal notice is given, it is followed by appearance and almost invariably by a commitment to preserve the status quo pending a hearing upon the motion. Court-martial proceedings were feared, but certainly these were not contemplated on the night of October 16, 1950, before the opening of court the following morning. The threat allegеd with respect to interference with the employment of plaintiffs by officers of defendant-appellant had not taken any tangible form and would have been an actionable wrong. It is not contended that the bank or safety deposit company would have turned over any moneys or property to defendant-appellant before the court had an opportunity to hear the matter upon notice. So far as appears, the last specific overt act took place October 6,1950, eleven days before the issuance of the injunction. ‘Some show of emergency is attempted to be made on the ground that the Cook County Council had certain obligations which it could not meet, but none of these were of such urgency as to have had a disastrous result before the court could hear the matter upon notice.
In the last analysis, to test the necessity for the issuance of an injunction without notice, the court must ask whether in the minutes оr hours required to procure a defendant’s appearance, defendant could and would do that which would seriously obstruct the cоurt’s power to deal justly and effectively with the issue in dispute. The rules of the court permit the court to enlarge or reduce the time of nоtice prescribed by the rules, but even if this were not so, the court would have that power as an alternative to issuing an injunction without notice.
Order reversed and cause remanded with directions to vacate the order of October 17, 1950, granting a temporary injunction.
Order reversed and cause remanded.