—and (2) that "defendants may not nullify a decree by carrying out prohibited acts through aiders and abettors, although they were not parties to the original proceeding,"

Rule 65 (d) "is derived from the common-law doctrine that a decree of injunction not only binds the parties defendant but also those identified with them in interest, in `privity'with them, represented by them or subject to their control. "

"The courts*** may not grant an enforcement order or injunction so broad as to make punishable the conduct of persons who act independently and whose rights have not been adjudged according to law

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide [in Rule 65 (d)] that: "Every order granting an injunction and every restraining order is binding only upon the parties to the action their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and upon those persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the order by personal service or otherwise …

—we think courts would not be apt to withhold a clarification in the light of a concrete situation that left parties... in the dark as to their duty toward the court

The third party is bound by an injunction if that party is identified with the named, enjoined party in interest, in `privity'with it, represented by it or subject to its control.

Further, "whether one brings himself in contempt as a `successor or assign'depends on an appraisal of his relations and behavior and not upon mere construction of terms of the order. "