Frostburg Building Ass'n v. Stark

Robinson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Although the general principles which govern Courts of equity, in granting injunctions and in the appointment of receivers may be considered well settled, yet it is not easy to lay down a positive or unvarying rule applicable to all cases. After all, it is a matter resting somewhat in the discretion of the Court, to be determined upon all the facts and circumstances surrounding the case. In the exercise however, of a jurisdiction so summary in its character, and which deprives one of his property without a hearing upon a mere ex parte application, Courts cannot be too cautious, otherwise an injury may be done the defendant in many cases, for which the subsequent restoration of the property may afford no adequate compensation.

If it be practicable, the defendant ought to have an opportunity to put in his answer, and if this cannot be done, it is the duty of the complainant, not only to show that he has an interest in the property in dispute, but that the interference of the Court is absolutely necessary to preserve it from loss and injury. Blondheim vs. Moore, 11 Md., 365 ; Triebert vs. Burgess, 11 Md., 452 ; Nusbaum vs. Stein, 12 Md., 315 ; Owen vs. Homan, 4 House Lords, 1032, per Lord Cranworth. Now in this case the application is made on the part of shareholders in a building association, and they allege ³⁴⁶ that the directors have grossly and fraudulently mismanaged the affairs of ,the association and have wilfully and corruptly disregarded its charter and by-laws, that they have permitted the secretary to embezzle the sum of two thousand eight hundred and sixty dollars and forty cents, and the treasurer the sum of nine thousand eight hundred and sixty-seven dollars and fifty-six cents, and have further allowed one of the directors