Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/430

422 ïfiDEEAL EEPOEÏEB. �new right is given and a specifie relief provided for the vio- lation of such right, the punishment or remedy is confined to that given by the statuts. Sedgwick on Statutory Law, 94. In this construction I coneur in the opinion of Mr. At- tomey General Devens, of April 30, 1878; but coneeding that the act of the defendant in detaining these letters was unauthorized, and tha,t the complaiuant might maintain an action at law for damages, it does not necessariiy foUow that he is entitled to an injunction. The writ of injunction does not issue as a matter of course, even if the complainant has made out a technical right to relief. An application to the court of chancery for the exercise of its prohibiting powers or restrictive energies must corne by the dictates of con- science, and be sancîioned by the clearest principles of jus- tice. The granting of an application is largely a matter of discretion, and is addressed to the conscience of the chancel- lor, acting in view of ail the circumstances connected with the case. A party seeking this extraordinary remedy must aome into court with clean hands, and show not only that his elaim is valid by a strict letter of the law, but that in justice and equity he is entitled to this particular mode of relief. �In the case of the Maryland Savings Institution v. Schroder, 8 Gill & Johnson, 93, the depositor of a sum weekly in a sav- mgs institution, which he was entitled to withdraw at pleasure, agreed with and requested the institution to convert and invest his deposits permanently into the stock of said Com- pany. Upon the conversion he received dividends and par- ticipated in its entire profits. The institution became insolv- ent, and receiving in the course of its settlement with its debtors its certificates of deposit and payment, which would absorb ail available funds of the depositor, on the ground that a conversion of his money into stock ,was in violation of the charter of the company, he applied for an injunction. It was held that whether the charter authoriaed it or not he was not entitled to the restraining power of the court. In delivering the opinion the court observed : �"The objeet of the injunction appears to have boen, and its effect and operations are to prevent the officers of the cor- ��� �