Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractplaintiffdefendantdamagesequityinjunctionmotion
contractplaintiffdefendantdamagesinjunctionwill

Related Cases

Stayton v. Delaware Health Corp., Not Reported in Atl. Rptr., 2014 WL 4782997, Med & Med GD (CCH) P 305,090, Med & Med GD (CCH) P 305,107
View Case »
Great Western Sugar Co. v. Mrs. Allison’s Cookie Co., 563 F.Supp. 430, 36 UCC Rep.Serv. 164
View Case »
Clark v. Pennsylvania State Police, 496 Pa. 310, 436 A.2d 1383
View Case »
eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 126 S.Ct. 1837, 164 L.Ed.2d 641, 74 USLW 4248, 78 U.S.P.Q.2d 1577, 06 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3935, 2006 Daily Journal D.A.R. 5756, 19 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 197, 27 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 685
View Case »
Helfend v. Southern Cal. Rapid Transit Dist., 2 Cal.3d 1, 465 P.2d 61, 84 Cal.Rptr. 173, 77 A.L.R.3d 398
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Cincinnati Exhibition Co. v. Marsans, 216 F. 269

Facts

The Cincinnati Exhibition Company offered Armando Marsans a contract to employ him for specific periods at a fixed compensation, with the condition that the company could discharge him with ten days' notice. Marsans accepted the offer in writing and began performing under the contract, receiving compensation for part of the term. This established a valid and binding contract, which included a negative covenant preventing him from providing similar services to others.

The plaintiff offered the defendant a contract to employ him for certain specified periods at a fixed compensation on condition that it should have the right to discharge him upon ten days' notice, and the defendant accepted that offer in writing. This made a valid and binding contract, especially after the defendant entered upon the performance of the contract and received the compensation there specified during a part of the term. The plaintiff's contract and the payment of the wages for this part of the term constitute a valuable consideration for the agreement.

Issue

Whether the court should grant a preliminary injunction to prevent Armando Marsans from rendering services as a ball player to anyone other than the Cincinnati Exhibition Company.

Whether the court should grant a preliminary injunction to prevent Armando Marsans from rendering services as a ball player to anyone other than the Cincinnati Exhibition Company.

Rule

A court may issue an injunction to prevent a party from violating a negative covenant in a contract when the services are unique and extraordinary, and the refusal of an injunction would likely cause irreparable harm to the plaintiff.

It is a settled rule of law that where a person agrees to render services that are unique and extraordinary, and which may not be rendered by another, and has made a negative covenant in his agreement whereby he promises not to render such service to others, the court may issue an injunction to prevent him from violating the negative covenant in order to induce him to perform his contract.

Analysis

The court applied the established rules of equity, noting that the unique nature of Marsans' services justified the issuance of an injunction. The potential for irreparable harm to the Cincinnati Exhibition Company if Marsans were allowed to breach the contract outweighed any potential loss he might suffer. The court determined that the plaintiff's bond would protect the defendant from any damages resulting from the injunction.

The facts of this case seem to me to bring it under this rule.

Conclusion

The court granted the motion for a preliminary injunction, prohibiting Armando Marsans from providing services to anyone other than the Cincinnati Exhibition Company until the final decision, contingent upon the plaintiff posting a bond.

This case falls under this rule of law, and the order of the court will be that an injunction issue against the defendant forbidding him from rendering his services as a ball player to any one other than the complainant until the final decision that the plaintiff gives a bond in the sum of $13,000 with ample security to pay any damages that may result to the defendant from the issue of this injunction.

Who won?

Cincinnati Exhibition Company prevailed in the case because the court found that the unique nature of Marsans' services and the potential irreparable harm justified the issuance of the injunction.

The court ordered that Marsans be prohibited from rendering services to anyone other than the plaintiff until the final decision, contingent upon the plaintiff posting a bond.

You must be