Page:United States Reports, Volume 209.djvu/274

 248 OCTOBER TERM, 1907. November 25, 1902, when, upon hearing, the court dissolved the injunction and discharged the order to show cause. The work was then continued until its completion in April, 1903. Subsequently the decree of Nvemher 25, 1902, was affamed by the Court of Appeals, and the cause was referred to an ditor to ascertain the damages caused to the defendants, or any of them, by the wrongful suing out of the injunction. The auditor reported that Mrs. Munn had sustained damages to the amount of six thousand dollars, and that the other defend- ants had sustained no damage. Exceptiohs to the auditor's report were overruled by the Supreme Court, and the appel- lants were decreed to pay to Mrs. Munn, in accordance with the terms of the undertaking, the sum found by the auditor as damages. This decree was affirmed by the Court of Appeals in the judgment now under review. It is contended tlmt the undertaking does not, by its terms, include Mrs. Munn in its protection, because it is expressed to be an undertaking "to make good to the deendant nil damages by him suffered." Little pains need be expended on the argu- ment which arises out of the letter of the bond. The under- taking was exacted by the court, it was offered by the com- plainant at a tinc when none of the defendants knew of the pendency of the suit, and it was entitled "No. 23468 Equity Docket, Stilson Hutchins, Complainant, Charles A. Munn et al., Defendants." It accompanied a restraining order directed against "the defendants and each of them," and we think it should be held to run to all the defenctants who were included in that order. It is further contended that, as Mrs. Munn was never served .with a subpna, or notice either of the order to show cause or of the restraining order, she is not entitled to the benefits of the undertaking. The order of the court was served !mmediately upon the architect and the builder, and the work was instantly stopped. No injury from the wrongful acts of the injunction was inflicted upon either of the defendants served with the court's order, but only upon the owner of the house. It is now

�