42 rmnmim. nnroarnn.
ant should not sing elsewhere; and the plaintiff is therefore entitled to
restrain the violation of it. As the season will close on May 15th
and the contract then terminate, there are certain equitable conditions
which should be observed, and which it is competent for the court, in
continuing the, injunction, to impose. Russell v. Farley, 105 U. S.
s _ 433, 438. -
The injunction of this court must not be used directly or indirectly to
‘ enforce the collection bythe plaintiff of his alleged but disputed claim
for previous advances, through the non—payment of salary hereafter
earned, at least until his right is legally adjudicated. (2) Consider-
ing the short period remaining, the defendant must not be sent to
California, where bythe contract she might have been taken with-
out salary en route going and returning; nor, having respect to her
“ precarious health, should she be sent to any very distant point; (3)
the plaintiff should furnish satisfactory security for the prompt pay-
ment weekly for the defendant’s services at the rate of $150 per week,
the contract price, from the time the defendant gives notice in writing
of her readiness to sing under the contract, so long as she shall con-
tinue in readiness to perform her duties. A
In case of failure to pay any future salary earned, tne defendant
may apply, on two days' notice, to the plaintiffs attorneys for the
C dissolution of this injunction. i ·   _
An order may be entered continuing the injunction subject to the
above provisions and conditions. _ ,
Eivaomnvo Eurrorn mom Snnvnve Itrvar. or Emrnormn. The de
cisions upon the judicial enforcement of the stipulations common between
actors, artists, authors, lecturers, or other professional workersancl their em-
ployers, that the employe shall not exercise his skill and talent for any other
person, are not very numerous, andare somewhat conflicting; but they estab-
lish the modern general doctrine to be that the employer is not obliged to sub-
mit to a breach of the covenant, and content himself with an actionfor dam- .
ages, but, in a proper ease, may have an injunction restraining the employe
from engaging in any rival service; and this, whether compelling the latter to
perform his atlirmative engagement to labor for his employer is practicable or
not. To rreconcilethe decisions would be ditlicult, except upon the explana-
tion that, whensuits of this nature were first brought, the inadequacy of the
. action for damages, as a remedy, was not fully perceived; but that, gradually,
as one case after another was presented, it became better understood, and
equity judges grew more prompt and willing to exercise their jurisdiction on
the ground that employers of public performers cannot well be compensated l
in damages for departures of artists from their establishments. If an actor, »
continuing to perform for his general employer, according to his engagement,