Hahn v. Concordia Soc. of Baltimore City

• Decision Date: 03 June 1875
• Citation: Hahn v. Concordia Soc. of Baltimore City, 42 Md. 460 (Md. 1875)
• Parties: MORITZ HAHN v. THE CONCORDIA SOCIETY OF BALTIMORE CITY.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

42 Md. 460

MORITZ HAHN v. THE CONCORDIA SOCIETY OF BALTIMORE CITY.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

June 3, 1875

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Baltimore City.

The bill in this case was filed by the appellees for an injunction restraining the appellant from the alleged violation of a contract by which he was to give them his services as an actor.Among others, the contract contained the two following stipulations.

S. 7.In case Mr. M. Hahn should break this engagement after this contract has been signed, then he obligates himself to pay to the Concordia Society a conventional fine of two hundred dollars, the claim of performing his engagement not precluded.This sum of two hundred dollars is already forfeited by any violation of the contract and requires no particular legal proceedings for its execution.

S. 12.Without asked for and only after having received the written permission of the theatre committee, Mr. M. Hahn is hereby prohibited to perform or take part in whatever production either with compensation or without, which is not under the auspices of the theatre committee.

Upon the case presented in the bill, the Court below passed an order directing an injunction to issue, and the appeal is taken from that order.The case is further stated in the opinion of the Court.

The cause was submitted on briefs to BARTOL, C.J., BOWIE STEWART, BRENT, GRASON, MILLER and ROBINSON, J.

Frederick C. Cook, for the appellant.

The writ of injunction should not have issued:

1st.Because the contract in behalf of which it issued was such as a Court of Equity would not enforce specifically by reason of its want of certainty and mutuality; because of its being a contract for personal services, which under no circumstances will the Court enforce, either by injunction or otherwise.Burton, et al. vs. Marshall,4 Gill, 489;Kemble vs. Kean,6 Sim., 333;Kimberly vs. Jennings,6 Sim., 340;Hamblin vs Dinneford,2 Edw. Ch., 529;Sanquirico vs Benedetti,1 Barb., 315;DePol vs. Sohlke, etal., 7 Rob., (N. Y.,) 280;Gelston vs. Frazier, et al.,26 Md., 329;Gervaise vs. Edwards,2 Dru. & W., 80; Hills vs. Croll, 2 Phillips, 60;Baldwin vs. Society, &c.,9 Sim., 393;Hope vs. Hope,22 Beav., 351;Fechter vs. Montgomery,33 Beav., 22;Mapleson vs. Bentham, 20 WeeklyRep., 176.

2nd.Because the negative clause sought to be enforced by injunction is in restraint of the exercise of the appellant's profession, and as such is unreasonable, being limited neither as to space or time, and hence, if at all enforceable, is such as the Court of Chancery will not aid.Mapleson vs. Bentham, 20 WeeklyRep., 176;Mitchell vs. Reynolds,1 P. Wms., 181;Ward vs. Byrne,5 M. & W., 555;Mallan vs. May,11 M. & W., 653;Horner vs. Graves,7 Bingh., 735;Chappel vs. Brockway,21 Wend., 157;Guerand vs. Dandelet,32 Md., 561.

John C. King, for the appellee.

In this case the contract contains a direct negative stipulation, not to act at any other theatre without the express permission in writing from the complainant; in such case equity will interfere and grant such relief.Morris vs. Colman,18 Ves., 437;Burton vs. Marshall,4 Gill, 491;Webster vs. Dillon, 3 Jurist, N. S., 432;Dietrichsen vs. Cabburn,2 Ph., 52;Lumley vs. Wagner, 5 De Gex &Sm. 485, and 1De G., Mac. &Gor., 604.

MILLER J., delivered the opinion of the Court.

On this appeal from an order granting an injunction we are confined to the case made by the bill.The bill filed by the appellees on the 5th of October, 1874, charges in substance, that they have in their Hall in Baltimore a stage and equipments for the exhibition of theatrical performances, and had at great expense and trouble employed a number of actors to act at their theatre from the 16th of September, 1874, to the 16th of April, 1875, and among others had employed the defendant under a contract in German, a translation of which into English is filed as an exhibit with the bill.

By that agreement (all the terms of which need not be stated,)the complainants engaged the defendant for the term beginning September 16th, 1874, until April 16th, 1875, at a monthly salary of $90, as an actor in all kinds of performances they might deem proper, and he agreed so to act for them.Then there is a stipulation to the effect that if the defendant should break this engagement after the contract is signed, he obligates himself to pay to the complainants a conventional fine of $200, which sum is forfeited by any violation of the contract and requires no particular legal proceedings for its execution.There is also, the further stipulation, that without the written permission of the theatre committee of the complainants, the defendant will not perform or take part in any production whatever, which is not under the auspices of that committee.

The bill then charges that in open violation of this agreement the defendant has suffered himself to be announced and published to perform at Turner Hall, another and different theatre in Baltimore, that he has no property out of which a judgment at law could be made, and that his appearance at such other theatre will irreparably injure the complainants in the management of their theatre, which depends entirely upon each actor acting the part or role required of him under the management of their committee.The bill then prays for an injunction prohibiting the defendant from acting, playing, performing, or assisting in acting, playing or performing at the stage or theatre of Turner Hall in Baltimore City, and we assume it was granted in the terms asked for.

This contract differs from that in Burton vs. Marshall,4 Gill, 487, in that it contains an express negative stipulation that the defendant would not do that which the injunction prohibited him from doing, whereas, in that case the only agreement on the part of Mrs. Burke was to render the services specified in her contract, and the injunction prohibited her from doing acts in relation to which she had made no stipulation.The Court noted the distinction between the case before them, and that of Morris vs. Colman,18 Ves., 437, where a play-writer who had covenanted not to write any dramatic performance for another theatre was, by injunction restrained from violating the covenant.They also referred to the then recent case of Kemble vs. Kean,6 Simons, 333, where the proprietors of Covent Garden Theatre agreed with an actor that he should act for twenty-four nights during a certain period, at their theatre, and in the meantime should not act at any other place in London, and the Vice-Chancellor held that the Court could not...