n’cAunn v.,mumM. _ 47
Hayes, manager of the Olympic theaterln New York, engaged Willio to
play at the Olympic for three months, and ·* not to perform at any other es· `
tablishment," etc. After playing two months, Willio accepted an offer of a
highersalary from a Boston theater. An injunction was granted, the court
mentioning, with approval, the modern doctrine that a definite contract by
an actor not to perform at any other theater than his employer’s may be en- _ ,
' forced; and saying that this remedy is not impaired by the Code of Proced- .
ure.(*0) T .     ,
Montague, manager of the Globe theater, London, engaged Flockton to act
at the Globe, without exacting an express stipulation that he should not act
elsewhere. But the vice·chancel1or said that such a stipulation was implied.
An engagement to perform for a definite term at one theater involves an
engagement not to perform during the term at any other theater. When a,. . .
person agrees to act at a particular theater, he agrees not to act anywhere else
as plainly as if a negative clause were inserted.(w) And the same opinion.
was expressed, obiter,in Fechter v. Montgo‘mery,(ac),where, thesuit was by
Fechter as manager; and, en parte, in Webster/v. DiZZOn.(y) . V . ,
Manager Daly engaged Fanny Morant Smith to play at his theater in_ New _ l _
York city during the seasons of 1874, 1875, and 1876, the contract containing a
stipulation that she should not act during the term of the oontractatianyg y
other New York city theater without_ his written consent; and thatvif shed
should attempt to do so, the plaintiff might, “ by legal process, or otherwise, ,
restrain her from so performing on payment to her, during such restraint,f’ of`
one-fourth her salary under the contract. She, however, allowed herself to be
advertised to play at a rival establishment, the Uniomsquare, theater,   he A
brought suit for an injunction. The New Yorksuperior court pronounced _
the stipulation not to perform, valid, and proper to ‘be’enforced by injunc-
tion`; saying `that, although the clause as to plaintiffs restraining a breach
on paying a quarter salary could not give jurisdiction, yet, as the court had
jurisdiction without it, the clause might be regarded as a guidein fixing the V
terms of the injunction. ‘ Therefore, the actress was enjoined fronrplaying
within the city, provided the manager shouldpunctually pay to her one-quad
ter of her agreed salary.(z) The opinion has been commended for its review
of the authorities. . V , _ by , __
For other cases in which the modern doctrine (of Lumley v. Wagner) has
becnincidentally recognized or discussed, and applied in a way not aiding
materially to support it, see Maplcson v. Ben“tham,(a) where the vicemlran-
cellor denied an application by Mapleson, lessee of the Royalltalian Opera;
to enjoin his first tenor from singing elsewhere; wtzver-rmmprani etc., Ry. Go]
v. London, etc., Ry. C0.,(b) involving an agreement relative to use of a rail-
road; and Taunton Copper Manufg Oo. v. Oo0k,(c).in_wl1ich.an employe of ·
a manufacturing company was enjoined from breaking his covenant with his 4
employers that he would not for five years disclose their secrets or `engage
(s) 1s71,nnyss v. wnne, ll Abb.1>»·. (N.s.)1sr. (z) 1874. miy v. smnn, 49 HoiV»_Pr. M0. , ,
"(w)’1873, Montague v. Flockton, L. R. 16 Eq. ’(¤)·2Ll Weekly Re.p.·176. . _ _
Cas.189; 28L. J. (N. S.) 581. (b>L.R. 16 Eq.Cas.433., _
(z) 33 Benv. 22. (r) Boston Law Rep. 547.
{y) 3.lur. (N. S.) 432. . V f