terests.^  [Thus,  a  party  has*  been  restrained  from  using  the
secret  of  compounding  a  medicine  not  protected  by  patent,
wjjen  it  appeared  that  the  secret  was  imparted  to  him,  to  his
own  knowledge,  in  breach  of  faith  or  contract,  on  the  part  of
the  person  so  communicating  it.^J'

§  953.  Before  closing  this  subject,  we  shall  now  proceed
to  state  a  few  other  cases  of  special  injunctions,  in  order  more
fully  to  illustrate  the  nature  and  limits  of  the  jurisdiction,  and
the  importance  of  it,  to  prevent  a  total  failure  of  remedial  jus-
tice. There  are,  for  instance,  many  cases,  in  which  Courts  of
Equity  will  interfere  by  injunction,  to  prevent  the  sales  of  real
estates;  as  to* restrain  the  vendor  from  selling  to  the  prejudice
of  the  vendee,  pending  a  bill  for  the  specific  performance  of  a
contract  respecting  an  estate  ;  for  it  might  put  the  latter  to  the
expense  of  making  the  purchaser  a  party,  in  order  to  give
perfect  security  to  his  title.^

§  954.  In  like  manner,  sales  may  be  restrained  in  all  cases,
where  they  are  inequitable,  or  may  operate  as  a  fraud  upon  the
rights  or  interests  of  third  persons ;  as  in  cases  of  trusts,  and
special  authorities,  where  the  party  is  abusing  his  trust  or
authority.*  And,  where  Sc#es  "have  been  made  to  satisfy  cer-
tain trusts  and  purposes,  and  there  is  danger  of  a  misapplica-
tion of  the  proceeds.  Courts  of  Equity  will  also  restrain  the
purchaser  from  paying  over  the  purchase-money.*  [And  gen-
erally where  the  necessity  of  the  case  requires  it,  a  Court  of
Equity  will  interfere   to   prevent  a  defendant   from  aflfectiiig


1  Cholmondeley  v.  Clinton,  19  Ves.  261,  267 ;  Evitt  v.  Price,  1  Sim.  K.  483  ;
Yovatt  V.  Winyard,  1  Jac.  &  Walk. -394.-

,  a  Morrison  v.  Moat,  15  Jurist,  787;  S.  C.  6  Eng.  Law  &  Eq.  K.  14.  And
see  Williams  v.  Williams,  3  Meriv.  159 ;  Green  v.  Folghamb,  1  Sim.  &  Stu.
