
    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. WILLIAM FLOYD and WILLIAM FLOYD, Appellants, v. ALFRED T. CONKLIN, Respondent.
    
      Injunction — what justifies granting it against officers of corporations — want of title to office in de facto 1/i'ustees not sufficient — not appropriate remedy in action of quo wa/rranto.
    
    The fact that an improper investment of the funds of a savings hank has heen made by its trustees, does tu't justify a court in continuing an injunction restraining its president from exorc'sing or performing any of the duties or privileges of the office of trustee or of president, unless it be shown that some further misuse of the corporate funds is threatened, or that some other act in violation of the plaintiffs’ rights is conten plated.
    A court of equity will not intei f j-e by injunction in matters relating merely to the internal government of a corporation, so as to restrain directors de facto from acting as such, on the sole ground of the alleged invalidity of their title to their offices. (Mozley v. Alston, 1 Phillips [19 Eng. Oh.], 790; Angelí & Ames on Corp., § 312.)
    In an action, brought in the name of the people, for the removal of a person from an office into which it is alleged he has unlawfully intruded, and for the recovery of such damages as he may have become liable to pay by reason of his usurpation, an injunction is not an appropriate remedy.
    If, for any reason, the continued exercise of his authority shall appear to endanger the interests of the corporation, the action to restrain him must be of a different nature, and be brought by some person whose interests will be jeopardized by the misconduct apprehended,where such action is not brought by the corporation.
    Appeal from an order denying a motion made for the continuance of an injunction.
    The action was brought to determine the right of the defendant to the office of trustee and president of the Mechanics and Traders’ Savings Institution. Both he and the relator claim to have been regularly elected to the office of president, and the defendant has held it, discharged its duties and exercised its authority, and still continues to do so. The injunction restrained him from exercising or performing any of the duties or privileges of the office of trustee of the institution, and from intermeddling with its affairs, and from performing any of the duties, or exercising any of the privileges, of the office of its president, or any control over its funds, property or effects.
    
      H. E. Davies, Jr., for appellant. A. J. Vanderpoel, for respondent.
   Opinion by

Daiiiels, J.

Beady; J., concurred.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs, besides disbursements.  