The general rule is that equity will not interfere to prevent the enforcement of a criminal statute even though unconstitutional. Speilman Motor Sales Co. v. Dodge, 295 U.S. 89, 79 L ed 1322, 55 S Ct 678; Williams v. State Barber Examiners, ante, 33, 25 N.W.2d 282; Douglas v. Jeanette, 319 U.S. 160, 87 L ed 1327, 63 S Ct 877, 882. Persons engaged in the liquor business or about to become engaged therein do so with full knowledge of the power of the legislature to make further regulations of the business as its judgment dictates.
Injunctions against the enforcement of a statute will in no case be granted in the absence of a clear showing of danger of irreparable injury "both great and immediate." Spielman Motor Sales Co. v. Dodge, 295 U.S. 89, 79 L ed 1322; Douglas v. Jeannette, 319 U.S. 157, 87 L ed 1324; Boise Artesian Hot Cold Water Co. v. Boise City, 213 U.S. 276, 53 L ed 796; Northport Power Light Co. v. Hartley, 283 U.S. 568, 75 L ed 1275; State Bank of Nebraska v. Rohren, 55 Neb. 223, 75 N.W. 543; Omaha Grain Exchange v. Spillman, Atty. Gen. 118 Neb. 729, 226 N.W. 452; Lockwood v. Baird, 59 N.D. 713, 231 N.W. 851; Richmond v. Miller, 70 N.D. 157, 292 NW 633; McIntyre et al. v. State Board of Higher Education et al. 71 N.D. 630, 3 N.W.2d 463; Williams v. State Board of Barber Examiners et al. 75 N.D. 33, 25 N.W.2d 282. "The mere fact that a statute is unconstitutional is not alone a sufficient ground for enjoining its enforcement; to this there must be added some wrong or injury respecting the person or property not amply remediable by any proceeding at law.
Ordinarily a court of equity deals only with civil cases involving property rights where it can afford a complete remedy by injunctive relief. Hence it does not interfere in the enforcement of penal statutes even though invalid unless there be exceptional circumstances and a clear showing that an injunction is urgently necessary to afford adequate protection to rights of property so as to circumvent great and irreparable injury until the validity of the particular penal statute is sustained. ( Douglas v. Jeannette, 319 U.S. 157; Spielman Motor Co. v. Dodge, 295 U.S. 89; Fenner v. Boykin, 271 U.S. 240; Argonaut Mining Co. v. McPike, 78 F. [2d] 584; Richmond Hosiery Mills v. Camp, 74 F. [2d] 200; Powell v. Hartsfield [Ga.], 11 S.E. [2d] 33; Williams v. State Board of Barber Examiners, 75 N.D. 33, 25 N.W. [2d] 282; Kelly v. Conner, supra; Lickey v. City of South Bend, 206 Ind. 636, 190 N.E. 858; City of Abbeville v. Renfroe [Ga.], 15 S.E. [2d] 782; City of Blackwell et al. v. Griffith Amusement Co. [Okla.], 16 P. [2d] 233.) For equity to so interfere in the absence of such circumstances and showing would not serve equitable justice.