Wm. Rogers Manuf'g Co. v. Rogers

• Decision Date: 17 February 1890
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: WM. ROGERS MANUF'G Co. v. ROGERS.

20 A. 467

58 Conn. 356

WM. ROGERS MANUF'G Co.

v. ROGERS.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Feb. 17, 1890.

Appeal from superior court, Hartford county; FENN, Judge.

This was a suit to enjoin the violation of a contract between Frank W. Rogers and the Wm. Rogers Manufacturing Company and the Rogers Cutlery Company as follows: "(1) That said companies will employ said Rogers in the business to be done by said companies, according to the stipulations of said agreement, for the period of twenty-five years therein named, if said Rogers shall so long live and discharge the duties devolved upon him by said Watrous as general agent and manager of the business to be done in common by said companies, under the directions and to the satisfaction of said general agent and manager; it being understood that such duties may include traveling for said companies, whenever, in the judgment of said general agent, the interest of the business will be thereby promoted. (2) The said companies agree to pay said Rogers for such services so to be rendered, at the rate of $1,000 per year for the first five years of such services, and thereafter the same or such larger salary as may be agreed upon by said Rogers and the directors of said companies, said salary to be in full during said term of all services to be rendered by said Rogers, whether as an employe or an officer of said companies, unless otherwise agreed. (3) The said Rogers, in consideration of the foregoing, agrees that he will remain with and serve said companies under the direction of said Watrous, as general agent and manager, including such duties as traveling for said companies, as said general agent may devolve upon him, including also any duties as secretary or other officer of either or both of said companies, as said companies may desire to have him perform at the salary hereinbefore named for the first five years and at such other or further or different compensation thereafter during the remainder of the twenty-five years as he, the said Rogers, and the said companies may agree upon. (4) The said Rogers during said term stipulates and agrees that he will not be engaged or allow his name to be employed in any manner in any other hardware, cutlery, flatware, or hollow-ware business either as manufacturer or seller, but will give, while he shall be so employed by said companies, his entire time and services to the interests of said common business, diminished only by sickness, and such reasonable absence for vacations or otherwise as may be agreed upon between him and said general agent." The complaint was held insufficient, and the plaintiffs appealed.

F. Chamberlin and E. S. White, for appellants. C. R. Ingersoll and F. L. Hungerford, for appellee.

ANDREWS, C. J. Contracts for personal service are matters for courts of law, and equity will not undertake a specific performance. 2 Kent, Comm. 258, note b; Hamblin v. Dinneford, 2 Ed w. Ch. 529; Sanquirico v. Benedetti, l Barb. 315; Haight v. Badgeley, 15 Barb. 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 compel the party to render the service. The courts in this country and in England formerly held that they could not negatively enforce the specific performance of such contracts by means of an injunction restraining their violation. 3 Wait, Act. & Def. 754; Marble Co. v. Ripley, 10 Wall. 340; Burton v. Marshall, 4 Gill, 487; De Pol v. Sohlke, 7 Rob. (N. Y.) 280; Kemble v. Kean, 6 Sim. 333; Baldwin v. Society, 9 Sim. 393; Fothergill v. Rowland, L. R.17 Eq. l32. The courts in both countries have, however, receded somewhat from the latter conclusion, and it is now held that where a contract stipulates for special, unique, or extraordinary personal services or acts, or where the services to be rendered are purely intellectual, or are peculiar and...