Edmundson-Randle Drug Co. v. Partin Mfg. Co.
Edmundson-Randle Drug Co. v. Partin Mfg. Co.
Opinion of the Court
The principle here invoked by the complainant company has been stated by Mr. Pomeroy as follows:
“Where one person agrees to render personal services to another, which require and presuppose a special knowledge, skill, and ability in the employé, so that, in case of default, the same services could not easily be obtained from others, although the aflirmative specific performance of the contract is beyond the power of the court, its performance will be negatively enforced by enjoining- its breach.” Pom. Spec. Perf. (2d Ed.) § 24.
This assumes, of course, that the threatened breach will result in injury to the com *209 plainant, for the redress of which his legal remedies are inadequate.
In such a case as this, we think the judicial discretion is properly exercised in the denial of the temporary writ, or in its subsequent dissolution if improvidently granted in tbe first instance. This policy is, indeed, fully sustained by' the authorities. Roosen v. Carlson, 46 App. Div. 233, 62 N. Y. Supp. 157; Foster v. Ballenberg (C. C.) 43 Fed. 821; Amusement Co. v. Hughes, 22 Hawaii, 554; 22 Cyc. 854, d; 5 Pom. Eq. Jur. (3d Ed.) § 221, p. 498.
In this view of the case, we need not, and do not, consider other questions raised and argued by counsel.
The decree appealed from will be affirmed.
Affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- EDMUNDSON-RANDLE DRUG CO. v. PARTIN MFG. CO. Et Al.
- Cited By
- 2 cases
- Status
- Published