48 FEDERAL REPORTER.
4 with any other employer; with which latter case compare Estconrt v. Est-
court Hop Essence Oo,(d) Judge Lowsnrfs opinion in Singer Sewingwnccnine
Oo. v. Union Button—hoZe, etc., Oo.(e) is an instructive discussion of the appli-
cation of the doctrine to ordinary mercantile contracts, in which a promisor
agrees not to deal with any other than the promises; with which case com-
pare Bickford v. Daois(f) and Fothergill v. Rowland.(*) i The suggestion
made at the close of this note, that, since modern equity enjoins a- breach of ·
a contract not to reveal secrets of business,(g) of a contract not to write a
particular description of hook,(h) of a contract not to practice a particular
trade or calling.(i) although in either case the injured party could maintain
an action for damages, there is no good reason for refusing an injunction to
forbid breaking a contract for exclusive professional services, is forcible and
sound.   curious German case is recounted in 26 Alb. Law J. 3. Cases in-
volving a claim of the artist that the manager first broke the contract by as-
signing the artist to a part or position less desirable than that which the con-
tract assured, oriby failing to give due .opportunity for appearances, are:
Dclyv. Smith,(j) Roserie v. Kira,lfy,(k) and De Pol v.-»S'ohlke.(l)
Musr rumen me AN Exrnizss Nnemrrvn Corrrnncr? Several English
cases support the view that' an engagement not to serve elsewhere is fairly
to be implied from a contract, in general terms, to perform under one mana-
geror at one establishment. But American judges have generally refused
to interfere unless there were an express stipulation forbidding the service
sought to be enjoined.` In other words, in this country a simple engagement
to serve leaves the employe at liberty to take other service, provided he faith-
fully performs the first engagement.(m) A
Form or A Rnsrnrcrrvs Covsrunr. The restrictive clause may well be
drawn in the following form—making variations appropriate to the circum-
stances of the particular case:
And it is further agreed, in consideration of the premises, that the party of
the second part (the actor, artist, or other employe) will not, during the term
of this agreement. exercise his professional skill and talents as an actor (or
. artist. etc.) in public, (within the city of New York, or otherwise state the Zim-
its to which the restriction is intended to be oonjined; andthe courts are more
willing to enforce these restrictions when the locality is limited.) either for com-
pensation or gratuitously, and either upon his own account or for another em-
ployeror establishment. without the consent in writing of the party of the first
part first obtained, under pain of injunction, action for damages, or any other
available judicial remedy: provided, however, that the party of the second part
may at any time and as often as he thinks fit perform gratuitously at any en-
tertainment charitably given for the burial expenses and relief of the family
I (d) 32 Law T. (N. S.) 80; reversing S. C. 31 (ii) 2S1m. SiS. 1; 18 Ves.437.
Law T. (N. S.) 567: Gower v. Andrew, 14 Cent. (i)125 Mass. 258; 16 Vt 176; 22Lsw Rep. 693;
L. J. 50; and Deming v. Ghupman, 11 How. Pr. 5 Jur. (N. S.) 976; 15 Sim. B6.
382. (D 49 How. Pr 150.
(c) 1 Holmes, 253. (lc) 12 Phila. 209.
(f) 11 rms. nm-. 549. (i) 1 nom. 2so. -
, *L. R. 17 Eq. 132. See, nlso, a note by E. 1-I. (m) Burton v, Marshall, 4 Gill, 487; Butler v.
Bennett, to Bowen v. Hall. 20 Am. Law Reg. (N. Gallettl, 21 How. Pr. 465; Wallace v. De Young,
S.) 578, 587. 98 Ill. 633. But compare Taunton Copper M¤···
(g) 9/Hare, 241; 9 Eng. L. si Eq. 182. uf’g Co. v. Cook, Host. Law Rep. 547, 549