44 FEDERAL _BEPOR’1‘ER.
ling directly.(b) The actor Kean was advertised to play at Drury Lane the-
“ ater, while there was yet 10 days unexpired of a prior engagement at Covent
Garden. The vicechancellor denied the application ofthe Covent Garden pro-
prietors to enjoin him, for the same reason, viz., that there was no jurisdiction
to compel him to perform his 10 days’ service.(c) _Upon examination of a ,
special agreement for mercantile services of defendant, containing a stipulation
W forbidding his working for any other house, the affirmative stipulations of
the contract were pronounced too vague and too onerous towards the em-
ploye to allow of decreeing a specilic performance, and the court would not
_ enjoin the breach of the negative covenant aione.(d)
Upon the other hand, the case of M orris v. Colmon(e) illustrates the _prin—
ciple that a covenant not to serve may be enforced by injunction where other
facts give equitable jurisdiction of the controversy. Colman, noted as a
dramatist, became manager of the Haymarket theater, under an agreement in
the nature of a copartnership, which contained a clause restraining him from
writing dramatic pieces for any other theater. In a suit which arose between
the parties interested in the management, the validity of this clause was
questioned before Lord Chancellor Ennoiv. _He pronounced it valid and en·
forceahle, it being between partners, and being neither contrary to public pol—
icy nor unreasonable as between the parties. The decision has generally been
, explained in later cases on the ground that the stipulation was one of several
inan agreement of copartnership, and that equity has jurisdiction of disputes
among partners, though this explanation has been qucstionecl.(f)
EARLY Amtnrcnn Decisions ran in the wake of the English; our courts
did not deny the jurisdiction, but were loth to exercise it. De Bivalinoli,
while manager of the Italian theater in New York, engaged Corsetti as first
bass in operas, the latter agreeing not to make use of his talents in any other
theater. But before the opening of the season Corsetti was announced to sail
. for Cuba, to perform there under another manager. De Rivafinoli then sought
i au injunction, (and ne meat,) which Chancellor WALWORTH refused, on the
groundrthat under the circumstances the application was premature, for- be·
fore commencement of the actor’s engagement the manager could not have a
right of action. On the general question he said, in eifect, that while it is
tlieoreticallyproper that " a bird that can sing and will not sing must be made
A to sing," yet there is an obstacle to making a vocalist sing by order of the
court of chancery, in the fact that no otlicer of the court has that perfect
knowledge of the Italian language, or possesses that exquisite sensibility in
the auricular nerve, which is necessary to the understandingand enjoyment
of Italian opera; and it would be diflicult for a master to determine whether
a defendant sang in faithful performance of his engagement, or ascertain
what eifect thecoercion might produce upon his singing, especially in the
livelier‘airs.(g)*· Similar considerations led 'EDWARDS, J., to refuse a simila
application in Sdnquzfréco v. Benedettifh) · ‘ r
" The comedian Ingersoll agreed with Hamblin, the manager of the Bower
» \(o)¤l838, Baldwin v..Soclety D. Ul K. 9 Sim. Q)18 Vas.437, (1812.)
J9:}. (f) 2 Phillips, 597.
(e) 1**29. Kemhle v. Kean. G Sim, 333. (g) lB33, De Rivullnoli v. Corsetti, 4 Paige, 2
(d) 1.:.1., li.niuci·ley v. Jennings, G Sun. 340. (li) i Barb. 314. ·