Legal Opinion

Wm. Rogers Manufacturing Co. v. Rogers

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided February 17, 1890PublishedCited by 21 opinions

Suit for an injunction to restrain the defendant from leaving the employment of the plaintiffs or engaging in other business, in violation of a contract; brought to the Superior Court in Hartford County. The plaintiffs were the Wm. Rogers Manufacturing Company and the Rogers Cutlery Company, both joint stock corporations located in Hartford, and carrying on business under one management, the manager being William H. Watrous.

Read the full summary

Suit for an injunction to restrain the defendant from leaving the employment of the plaintiffs or engaging in other business, in violation of a contract; brought to the Superior Court in Hartford County. The plaintiffs were the Wm. Rogers Manufacturing Company and the Rogers Cutlery Company, both joint stock corporations located in Hartford, and carrying on business under one management, the manager being William H. Watrous. On the 17th of March, 1879, the following contract was entered into between Watrous, acting as agent of the plaintiff companies, and the defendant. “1. That said…

1Opinion of the CourtAndrews, C. J.

Contracts for personal service are matters for courts of law, and equity will not undertake a spe*364cific performance. 2 Kent’s Com., 258, note 5; Hamblin v. Dinneford, 2 Edw. Ch., 529; Sanquirico v. Benedetti, 1 Barbour, 315; Haight v. Badgeley, 15 id., 499; De Rivafinoli v. Corsetti, 4 Paige, 264. A specific performance in such cases is said to be impossible because obedience to the decree cannot be compelled by the ordinary processes of the court. Contracts for personal acts have been regarded as the most familiar illustrations of this doctrine, since the court cannot in any direct manner…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Peabody v. NorfolkMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1868
  2. Hamblin v. DinnefordNew York Court of Chancery · 1835
  3. De Rivafinoli v. CorsettiNew York Court of Chancery · 1833
  4. Bank of Cal. v. Fresno Canal & Irrigation Co.California Supreme Court · 1878

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Samuel Stores, Inc. v. AbramsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1919
  2. H. W. Gossard Co. v. CrosbySupreme Court of Iowa · 1906
  3. Eureka Laundry Co. v. LongWisconsin Supreme Court · 1911
  4. Burns v. GouldSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1977
  5. Fulton Grand Laundry Co. v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1922

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API