46 FEDERAL REPORTER.
formance of the ailirmative one to which it is incident.(q) But Lord Chan-
“ cellor ST. LmoNAm>s said that when the reason why the court could not de-
cree specific performance is not that the plaintiff is not entitled to it, but
merely the want of means to compel the defendant to perform, he thought the
court need not on that account refrain from doing what was within its power,
viz., forbidding aperformance which will violate the contract. To the objec-
tion that there was a remedy at law by action for damages, the lord chancellor
replied that such remedy was no better than exists upon covenants not to
practice as attorney, surgeon, etc., within certain limits, which are often en-
forced by injunction. Another objection was that the promise not to sing
elsewhere was not in the original agreement; but the chancellor said that the
two papers were not independent, but were in effect one contract; and that
even if the stipulation not to sing elsewhere had never been made in writing,
' he thought it was implied in the original contract; in other words, singing for .
Mr. Gye was a breach of the spirit and meaning of the contract to sing for
Mr. Lumley. Another objection was that the injunction would be mischiev-
ous, because it would prevent apopnlat artist from singing at one theater, while
the court could not promote her performing at another; hence t-he tendency
would be to prevent the public from hearing her anywhere; but the chancellor
said that the artist had no right to complain on this ground; the injunction
would merely forbid her doing what she had engaged not to do. The tem-
porary injunction was. therefore, continued.(-r) The opinion embodies an
` elaboratereview of the previous English cases on the extent to which equity
may go in enjoining breach of negative covenants of various kinds; and the
decision has been generally followed in both countries as establishing the ju·
risdlctiou to enforce contracts not to serve in public performances or intel·
lectual work. V i
A firm of French photographists, Fredricks & Co., employed Constant
Mayer as ‘f artist painter"' for three years, at an annual salary, to retouch
proofs iu_ oil at their New York house, and he engaged not to work for any
one else; yet he left them and engaged with Gurney. The question whether
the court could grant an injunction was decided in their favor, the judge say-
ing that this remedy is not applicable to all restrictive covenants, for many
may be protected by action for damages; but contracts for employment of a
great actorgor for services which involve exercise of high powers of mind
peculiar to the one person, cannot be treated by ordinary rules, but require
the special remedy of injunction.(s) But, on the merits of the application
under the particular circumstances, the judge denied it; and this was atiirmed
’ in Fredricks v. .Mayef.(t)
Annetti Galletti agreed todance at the Broadway Music Hall, New York,
for six months at a weekly salary, and to “ exercise her utmost abilities for
the promotion of the exhibition." But the agreement did not contain an ex-
press clause forbidding her to perform elsewhere; and on account of this
omission the employers motion for an injunction was denied.(u) `
(q) 6 Sim. 333; ld. 340; 3 Mac; & G. 393. (4) IRM. Frcdricks v. Mayer, 13 How. Pr. 566.
(r) 1852, Lumley v. Wngner,.1 De Gex, M. At G. (z) l uosw. 227. ·
604; 13 Eng., L. dh Eq. 252, (u) 1561, Butler v. Gallctti, 21 How. Pr. 465.