the defendant, and said New York Associated Press, its officers, agents, or servants, enjoining them, and each of them, from addressing any communications or letters to any newspapers, their publishers or editors, threatening to withdraw, and also from withdrawing, the services of said New York Associated Press to said newspapers in case they continue to avail themselves of the services of this plaintiff; and that they further be directed to withdraw and countermand such as have already been sent; and that the New York Associated Press be further enjoi ned from enforcing, or attempting" to enforce, in any mode or manner whatsoever, the said by-law in any way unlawfully interfering with the business of this plaintiff; and for such other and further relief as the court may deem proper, besides the costs and disbursements of this action.” The by-law or rule of the New York Associated Press referred to was to the effect that none of the members should enter into any arrangement for taking news from other news agencies. Plaintiff alleged that the business engaged in by the parties was “a public business, and that both plaintiff and the said New York Associated Press are therefore under an obligation to serve the entire public; and that it is essential for the proper conduct of a newspaper, and for the interests of its readers, subscribers, and advertisers, and for the interest of the public, that such newspaper should be at liberty to avail itself of all sources of information, and combine, if it thinks best, the intelligence and information furnished by the various agencies instituted for that purpose.” The New York Associated Press directed such ■of its members as were subscribers to plaintiff’s system to discontinue plaintiff’s service, on the ground that it was a violation of the rules of the Associated Press. A motion for an injunction pendente lite was denied, and plaintiff appeals.
Argued before Barrett and Patterson, JJ.Nathan Bijur, for appellant. A. G. McDonald, for respondents.
The plaintiff’s application amounted to nothing more nor less than an attempt to restrain the defendants from transacting their lawful business in their own way, lest in doing so the plaintiff’s rival business should be injured or diminished. The defendants have a perfect right to limit the sale of the news which they collect to those who contract to deal exclusively with them. They are private individuals, dealing, it is true, with a large public, but governed by no corporate duty or statutory obligation. They certainly owe no duty to the plaintiff, which is a foreign corporation, attempting to compete with them, and with whom they have no privity or relations of any kind. When one of the defendants’ customers comes forward as a suitor, it will be time enough to consider whether such customer can with impunity violate his contract, and, while dealing with the plaintiff, demand a continuance of the defendants’ services. It certainly is an extraordinary demand on the part of a competitor that the defendants be enjoined from enforcing their agreements with their customers, or from refusing to accept new customers, without the ordinary limitation as to exclusive dealing. The plaintiff has no standing to maintain such an action, and its complaint is devoid of equity. It may be added that the injunction sought was almost in the precise terms of the prayer for relief, and the granting of it would have been equivalent to finaf judgment before trial. Such an injunction is only granted in an extreme case, and where the right is absolutely clear. No such case has here been presented, but rather the reverse. The application for an injunction pendente lite was therefore without merit, and was properly refused.
The order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.