This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Stevens (P) filed a bill of complaint against Hospital (D) for refusing to allow him to perform surgical operations contrary to its constitution and bylaws. P sought an injunction. D alleged that its constitution and bylaws had been amended so that P was not entitled to operate without permission of D’s directors and staff. P did not obtain that permission. A decree dismissing the bill was reversed because the amendments on which D relied for refusing P were void because proper notice had not been given as was required by Maryland law. The case was remanded, and a perpetual injunction was issued in February 1923. That injunction is listed on page 289 Re 5th edition and basically perpetually restrained D from messing with P in his surgical treatment of his patients in the hospital. Three months later D adopted a new bylaw that violated the injunction. P then filed a petition praying that D be attached and punished for violation of the injunction. D answered and admitted that it passed the bylaw and that P could not operate in D’s hospital without approval which P did not obtain but that D had not discriminated against P as he was being treated the same as all other doctors in Easton and that P had not been denied in the fact that he had never applied; thus, D denied disobeying the injunction. D then asked and was granted leave to move for dissolution of the injunction. P demurred to the answer but before the motion for dissolution was filed the court sustained the demurrer and continued the injunction. The court reserved the question of punishment of D until the hearing of the motion to dissolve the injunction was heard. D then appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.