u’cAULL v. Bmmm. 37
being thus in court at plaintilfs’ instance, have a right, by answer or · ·
cross-bill, to be fully heard, and not to be denied a full hearing be-
cause the sole basis, jurisdictionally, of plaintiifs’ bill is true. The
defendants are here because they are out of possession, and to say that,
therefore, they shall not be heard would bea strange perversion of
the rule, and entirely subversive of the only ground on which ·plain·
this proceed in equity. The nrst plea is overruled.
The second plea looks to the averments of the cross-bill concerning
the title set up affirmatively by the defendants. The controversy, as
fully disclosed by the plaintiffs in their original bill, pertains to an
alleged tax title. All the requirements of the statutes are set out,
and the particulars wherein it is alleged said statutes were not ob-
served, by reason of which defendants’ title is invalid. The cross-bill
avoids meeting said allegations, and avers in the most general terms
that defendants have a collector’s deed. It is not disclosed under
what direct authority or preliminary proceedings or judgment said `
collector acted. In other words, there are in the cross-bill no ade—
quate averments to show title in the defendants. This defect should
have been taken advantage of by demurrer, The court overrules the
plea, but, treating it as a demurrer, gives the defendants leave to
amend.
It should be remarked that the form of both pleas is objectionable
in referring the court by lines and pages of the cross·bill to what is
stricken out, instead of stating the subject-matter. The court should
not be driven to the task of hunting outby folios, lines, and pages,
in voluminous pleadings, the various facts intended to be assailed, r
and thus determine as ex mem mom what the objection may possibly
suppose exceptionable, or whatlit can detect so to be. V The points
already presented as to the second plea cover the demurrer, whichis
' sustained. A
McCAu1.1. ·v. BRAHAM.
(Circuit Court, S. I). New York. March 20, 1883.) i
1. OONTRACTB—ARTISTS’ Smwrcms-Excmsxva RIGHTB—DAMAGES—INJUNCTION.
Contracts for the exclusive services of distinguished artists in theatrical '
representations are personal and peculiar. Damages for violation of such con-
tracts are not capable of definite determinatiomand violations of them may
be properly restrained by injunction. Where damages for the violation of a _
qzpyvejrgant are liquidated by agreement, aemblc, an injunction will not be al- _