Christian Hosp. v. People ex rel. Murphy

• Decision Date: 23 October 1906
• Citation: 79 N.E. 72,223 Ill. 244
• Parties: CHRISTIAN HOSPITAL et al. v. PEOPLE ex rel. MURPHY.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

223 Ill. 244

79 N.E. 72

CHRISTIAN HOSPITAL et al.

v.PEOPLE ex rel. MURPHY.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Oct. 23, 1906.

Appeal from Appellate Court, First District.

Proceedings by the people, on the relation of John B. Murphy, against the Christian Hospital and others for the violation of an injunction issued in a suit against respondents by John B. Murphy. From a judgment of the Appellate Court, affirming a judgment finding defendants guilty of contempt, defendants appeal. Reversed.

W. Knox Hayes, for appellants.

Knight & Brown (George G. King, of counsel), for appellee.

CARTWRIGHT, J.

On June 3, 1903, John B. Murphy filed his bill of complaint in the superior court of Cook county against Christian Hospital, a corporation, and N. News Wood, appellants, and others, alleging that complainant was a licensed physician and surgeon and a graduate of a medical college; that he had continued his studies in Europe and afterward engaged in practice in Chicago, devoting his attention largely to surgery; that he was a professor of surgery in two medical schools, a surgeon on the staff of three hospitals, president of a surgical society, and a member of various medical associations; that he had contributed largely to medical journals, and had acquired an extensive acquaintance in the United States and foreign countries, so that patients came from various parts of the United States to be operated upon by him, and he was frequently called to other states for operations;that a large number of patients were sent to him by other doctors who know of him or knew of his writings and connection with medical colleges, and his practive yielded him large revenues; that about May 12, 1903, he received a letter signed ‘Christian Hospital.-N. News Wood, Pres. and Supt.,’ stating that he had been elected president of the medical and surgical staff of the hospital, and it was desired that he should accept the appointment; that they would seek to place on him no additional burdens further than to request the acceptance, and to permit them to place his name at the head of the staff, and to call him in consultation in important cases able to reward him with substantial fees, and that an elegant certificate for members of the staff had been engraved-a copy of which was sent to him with his name engrossed thereon. So far as appears he made no reply to the letter, but the bill alleged that up to that time he had had no connection with the hospital and knew nothing of it; that shortly afterward he received letters from doctors all over the country, some reprimanding him for being a party to the scheme of the hospital, and others inquiring whether he was, in fact, interested in it; that inclosed with such letters were copies of letters sent out by the hospital soliciting applications to be placed on its staff, on which his name appeared as president of the staff, and also a Latin and English fac simile of the proposed certificate to be issued to members; that on such certificate his name appeared in the English copy as ‘President of Staff’ and on the Latin copy as ‘Praefectus Potestatis Medicorum;’ that on both copies there was a picture of him in operating attire about to undertake an operation in clinic; that the use of his name and picture was without his knowledge or consent; that the letters sent out to doctors proposed membership on the hospital staff, for which a charge of $20 or $25 was to be made, and the hospital was to pay to the member a cash commission of 50 per cent. of all surgical fees, and 25 per cent. of all medical fees, of patients sent by the member; that it was unprofessional for a physician or surgeon to advertise for patients; that such advertising was held in disrepute by doctors and all well-informed people; that placing his name on the literature and fac simile, as president of the staff, or connected with the hospital, was a fraud, which had brought him into disrepute with fellow members of his profession, and injured his good name and practice, and that he had suffered financial loss, and would suffer further and irreparable injury unless the further use of his name should be enjoined. He prayed for a writ of injunction enjoining the defendants from using his name, signature, or picture in connection with the hospital. A temporary injunction was issued without notice, restraining the defendants from using the complainant's name, signature, or picture in connection with the Christian Hospital; from sending out any more literature of the same kind or similar to that sent out on or about May 12, 1903; restraining them from using or distributing any of the letters written upon the letterheads on which complainant's name appeared; from using complainant's name, signature, or picture, in connection with the certificate or literature of the hospital relating to its business, and from representing in any manner that complainant was then or ever had been connected with the hospital. The injunction writ was served on June 3, 1903, and nothing further was done in the suit until October 20, 1904. There was no default or answer, and neither party paid any attention to the suit for more than 16 months. On October 20, 1904, complainant filed an affidavit in the superior court stating that the Christian Hospital had issued certificates containing his picture after the injunction, and that he was informed and believed that Wood and the hospital had been guilty of violating the injunction, and he petitioned the court for an attachment against them. An attachment writ was ordered and issued without notice and was served upon the hospital and Wood. They appeared and demurred to the petition, which was then amended by leave of the court. A special demurrer to the petition was overruled, and the defendants answered, alleging that the injunction writ was void, but denying that they had violated it. They denied that they had, either expressly or impliedly, represented that the picture on the certificate was the picture of the complainant, or that he was or ever had been connected with the Christian Hospital or that the persons named in the petition had been induced to believe that he was connected with it, and they alleged that the picture, containing a group of persons, was a mere matter of ornamentation on the certificates, and that, before admitting any of said persons to membership or issuing any certificate they were fully informed and apprised, the complainant was in no way connected with the hospital. Upon a hearing, the bill for injunction and the writ were read in support of the petition, and a number of affidavits were presented on each side. The court adjudged the defendants guilty of contempt, in having willfully violated the writ of injunction, and ordered that N. News Wood be committed to jail for a period of 10 days, and pay a fine of $100, and that the Christian Hospital pay a fine of $250. The defendants appealed to the Appellate Court for the First District, and their appeals were heard in the branch of that court, which affirmed the judgments in both cases. Further appeals were prosecuted to this court, and the cases were consolidated.

It is contended that the court erred in adjudging the defendants guilty of contempt, for the reason that the injunction was void. The argument that it was void is based on several grounds; one of which is that the writ was issued contrary to the prohibition of section 3 of the act to revise the law in relation to injunctions, in force July 1, 1874 (Hurd's Rev. St. 1901, c. 69), which prohibits the granting of an injunction without previous notice, unless it shall appear from the bill, or affidavit accompanying the same, that the rights of the complainant will be unduly prejudiced if the injunction is not issued immediately and without notice. There was nothing in the bill from which it could be inferred that the rights of the complainant would be prejudiced if notice was not given, and the injunction was issued without notice, upon the affidavit of complainant stating his conclusions that his rights...