usually suffice if complainant establishes a prima facie casc entitling him to specific performance, and it is not necessary that it should conclusively appear that he will maintain his case upon the final hearing. It is to be observed, however, that an injunction in aid of specific performance, being merely ancillary to the main purpose of the bill, is dependent upon that and must stand or fall with the bill. And where it appears that the contract which it is sought to enforce specifically is not concluded or certain in all its parts, so as to be properly enforced, the injunction will be dissolved for want of equity in the bill. So, too, if there are disputes concerning the rights of the parties under the contract, such disputes involving the very terms and obligation of the contract itself, an injunction will be withheld until the rights of the parties are ascertained and adjusted. And if upon the case as made out by the bill, complainant is not entitled to a specific performance, he can not have an injunction, which is merely ancillary to the principal object of the suit.4 II. INJUNCTIONS AGAINST THE NEGOTIATION AND COLLECTION OF PROMISSORY NOTES. § 709. Fraud or duress a ground for relief. 710. Violations of trust; parties. 711. Effect of injunction restraining payment of note. 712. Fraud; undue influence; threats. § 709. The aid of equity is sometimes invoked to restrain the collection of commercial paper, where its enforcement would be inequitable and against conscience. And it may be asserted as a rule, that where promissory notes have been obtained by fraud or duress, or by undue influence and without adequate Powell. Lloyd, 1 Y. & J. 427; Attwood v. Barham, 2 Russ. 186; Crosbie v. Tooke, 1 Myl. & K. 433. 'McKibbin v. Brown, 1 McCart. 13. 'Brown's Appeal, 62 Pa. St. 17. Allen v. Burke, 2 Md. Ch. 534. 1 consideration, an injunction may be properly granted to restrain their collection, if in the hands of the payee. Thus, where complainant has been induced to give his notes and a mortgage upon threats of a prosecution for perjury, which threats were utterly groundless, the collection of the securities will be restrained. So undue influence exercised upon the maker of a note, who was a person of weak mind and constantly given to intoxication, has been deemed sufficient ground for enjoining a suit upon the note. So, too, fraudulent representations in the sale of a patent right, or the failure of the patent, which constituted the original consideration for which the notes were given, has been held sufficient to warrant an injunction against their collection. 4 § 710. Where one has received commercial paper which has been entrusted to him for a special use or purpose, and in breach of the trust reposed in him, he attempts to convert the paper to a different use, he may be enjoined from any act, such as carrying on a suit at law, which may be the means or instrument of the violation of trust.5 And the assignees of such note, taking it under circumstances sufficient to apprise them of the fraud or breach of trust, may be enjoined from proceedings at law for its enforcement. But if a note has passed into the hands of a bona fide holder for valuable consideration, proceedings at law for its collection will not be restrained on the ground of fraudulent representations by the payee to the maker. Nor will the fact that a payment was made upon the note while in the hands of the payee, who assigned it without indorsing the payment, warrant an injunc tion to restrain proceedings under a judgment recovered by the assignee of the note.8 1 Sacket v. Hillhouse, 5 Day, 551; Darst v. Brockway, 11 Ohio, 462 · James v. Roberts, 18 Ohio, 548; Rembert v. Brown, 17 Ala. 667. 'James v. Roberts, 18 Ohio, 548. 8 Rembert v. Brown, 17 Ala. 667. 4 Sacket v. Hillhouse, 5 Day, 551; Darst v. Brockway, 11 Ohio, 462. "Atlantic etc. v. Tredick, 5 R. I. 171. • Id. 'Dougherty v. Scudder, 2 C. E. Green, 248. * Cummins . Bentley, 5 Ark. 9. 8711. With regard to the effect of a temporary injunction. restraining the payment of a note, as where the makers and guarantor have been enjoined from making payment, it is held that the writ constitutes no bar to the recovery of a judgment upon the note itself. But in no event should parties be enjoined from the payment of notes who are not made defendants in the bill, and an injunction granted against such persons will be dissolved because of the non-joinder.2 8712. The negotiation of commercial paper may be enjoined where it was obtained through fraudulent or improper conduct, rendering it against conscience to enforce it, and where there is danger of its passing into the hands of innocent purchasers for valuable consideration and without notice, whereby the maker would be cut off from asserting his defense at law. And undue influence used in obtaining a note will warrant the court in enjoining its collection. Thus, in the case of a young woman who had just attained her majority, and who was induced through the representations of her relatives, with whom she lived and by whom she was largely controlled, to give a promissory note, without consideration and in ignorance of its terms, an injunction was allowed against the enforcement of judgment upon the note. So where notes have been inequitably and unjustly extorted from complainant 1 Campbell v. Gilman, 26 Ill. 120. Fellows v. Fellows, 4 Johns. Ch. 25. 'Hood v. Aston, 1 Russ. 412; Sharp v. Arbuthnot, 13 Jur. 219; Green . Pledger, 3 Hare, 165; Thurman v. Burt, 53 Ill. 129. 4 Espey v. Lake, 10 Hare, 260. "I take it to be quite clear," says the Vice Chancellor, “that the principles of this court go to this extent — that, in the case of a security taken from a person just of age, living under the influence and in the house of another person, with a relationship subsisting between such other person and the person from whom the security is taken, which constitutes anything in the nature of a trust, or anything approaching to the relation of guardian and ward, or of standing in loco parentis to the surety, this court will not allow such security to be enforced against the person from whom it is taken, unless the court shall be perfectly satisfied that the security was given freely and voluntarily, and with out any influence having been exercised by the party in whose favor the security is made, or by the party who was the medium or instrument of obtaining it." by force of judicial process, issued contrary to an express agreement, and such notes are without consideration in fact or in law, the payee may be enjoined from putting them in circulation by assignment or otherwise.1 III. INJUNCTIONS AGAINST THE BREACH OF NEGATIVE CONTRACTS. § 713. The remedy analogous to specific performance. 714. Covenants in lease enforced by injunction. 715. Covenant not to carry on a certain business enforced. 716. Illustrations of the rule; sub-lessees may be enjoined. 717. Relative convenience not regarded where the right and its violation are clear. 718. Otherwise if these are in doubt. 719. Breach of covenant need not amount to nuisance. 720. Certainty; damages; threatened breach. 721. When covenant may be controlled by recitals. 722. Construction of contract as to penalty and liquidated damages. 723. The same. 724. Present in distinction from reversionary rights. 725. Covenant need not run with the land. 726. Lessor's conduct may debar him from relief. 730. Laches a bar to relief. 731. Injunction not allowed where contract can not be enforced. 732. General rule applicable to contracts for personal service. 733. Contracts containing both affirmative and negative stipulations. 734. Distinction. 735. Purely negative contract. 713. The remedy by injunction to prevent the violation of negative agreements, or contracts not to do a particular thing, is closely akin to the remedy by way of specific performance of agreements of an affirmative nature. In both cases the object sought is substantially one and the same, and by enjoining the violation of a negative contract a court of 'Thurman . Burt, 53 Ill. 129. equity in effect decrees its specific performance.1 Thus, in the case of an author who has contracted to write for a publisher and covenanted that he will not write for any other during the continuance of his agreement, an injunction will be allowed to restrain another publisher from employing him, thus in effect enforcing the performance of the contract. So an author who has sold a work with an express stipulation. that he will do nothing to interfere with its publication, may be enjoined from publishing another work upon the same subject, whose publication would hinder and impede the sale of the first.3 714. Courts of equity are frequently called upon to prevent by injunction the violation of negative covenants annexed to leases, and thus indirectly to enforce specific performance of the contract for the benefit of the lessor. Thus, where premises are leased under an express covenant on the part of the tenant that he will not convert meadow land, an injunction will be allowed to prevent him from breaking up meadow land for the purpose of building, the relief being granted expressly because of violation of covenant, and not upon the ground of waste. And where a lessee is by the terms of his lease restricted to a particular use of the demised premises, equity will restrain him from any other use of them, even though no irreparable injury be shown to result from such breach of covenant. The interference in such case is based upon the ground that, while there is a remedy at law for breach of the covenant on the part of the lessee, a new suit would have to be brought daily for each daily repetition of the offense, and an injunction is therefore nccessary to prevent a multiplicity of suits, as well as on the ground of the great difficulty in estimating damages at law for such a grievance.5 'Lumley v. Wagner, 1 De Gex, M. & G. 615, Stiff v. Cassell, 2 Jur. N. S. 348. 'Stiff v. Cassell, 2 Jur. N. S. 348. 'Barfield v. Nicholson, 2 Sim. & St. 1. De Wilton v. Saxon, 6 Ves. 106. 'Steward v. Winters, 4 Sandf. Ch. 587. This was a bill by a lessor to restrain his lessee from using the premises demised as an auction store, |