In the case of Morris v. Colman, the Court restrained Mr. Colman from writing for any other theatre, inferring from that that the order would compel Mr. Colman, or have the tendency to compel Mr. Colman, to write for the Haymarket Theatre; but in this case the Court has no power to compel Mr. Hills to supply acids by ordering him not to supply acids to any other person; that is not the agreement, nor was it ever intended that it should be the agreement. In England: Lumley v Wagner (1852) 1 De GM&G 604; 42 ER 687; Warner Bros v Nelson [I9371 1 KB 209. His Lordship concluded by saying that, looking at the merits and circumstances of the case, as well as at the point of law raised, he must refuse this motion, with costs. Rep. 687 (1852) Facts. Lumley v. Gye Court of Queen's Bench, 1853 2 El. The Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' knowledge of a fact said to be communicated to them in a letter, of which no copy was kept, but the receipt of which the Defendants admitted. 52; see p. 58); he there says, "If the bill states a right or title in the Plaintiff to the benefit of the negative agreement of the Defendant, or of his abstaining from the contemplated act, it is not as I conceive material whether the right be at law or under an agreement which cannot be otherwise brought under the jurisdiction of a Court of Equity." A case commonly cited for that purpose is the case of a nuisance. That was a very simple case, and the [629] question upon what principle it was decided formed the subject of discussion before me. 553.]. A. entered into a covenant that he would not carryon the trade of a tailor which he had just sold, within certain limits, and C. entered into a covenant that he would employ A . "It was thrown out, in the course of the argument, that this Court might compel one party to perform his part of the contract, and leave the other party to his remedy at law. The earlier authorities cited by the Plaintiff in the Court below, namely, Martin v. Nutkin (2 P. W. 266), Barret v. Blagrave (5 Ves. In that case the negative covenant, not to sell water to the prejudice of the Plaintiffs, was not enforced by Lord Eldon, not because he had any doubt about the jurisdiction of the Court (for upon that point he had no doubt), but because it was impossible to ascertain every time the water was supplied by the Defendants whether it was or not [617] to the damage of the Plaintiffs; but whether right or wrong, that learned Judge, in refusing to exercise the jurisdiction on very sufficient grounds, meant in no respect to break in on the general rules deducible from the previous authorities. From a careful examination of all these authorities I am of opinion that the principles and rules deducible from them are in direct contravention of those principles and rules which were so elaborately pressed upon me during the argument; and I wish it to be distinctly understood that I entertain no doubt whatever that the point of law has been properly decided in the Court below. 88) does remove the whole weight of that learned Judge's authority on this subject. & War. Facts: Wagner contracted to sing in Lumley's theatre for a fixed period. That was properly a case for specific performance, but from the nature of the contract itself there was a portion of it which could not be executed. The first was that of Martin v. Nutkin (2 P. W. 266), in which the Court issued an injunction restraining an act from being done where it clearly could not have granted any specific performance; but then it was said that that case fell within one of the exceptions which the Defendants admit are proper cases for the interference of the Court, because there the ringing of the bells, sought to be restrained, had been agreed to be suspended by the Defendant in consideration of the erection by the Plaintiffs of a cupola and clock, the agreement being in effect the price stipulated for the Defendant's relinquishing bell-ringing at stated periods; the Defendant having accepted the [615] benefit, but rejected the corresponding obligation, Lord Macclesfield first granted the injunction which the Lords Commissioners, at the hearing of the cause, continued for the lives of the Plaintiffs. Considered, Wolverhampton and Walsal Railway v. London and Northwestern Railway, 1873, L. R. 16 Eq. The operation could not be completed. 485; 21 L. J. Ch. In the case of Stocker v. Brockelbank there was no negative covenant.]. B. D. 341 ; Alderson v. Maddison, 1881, 7 Q a Court of Chancery 1 De &! V. Jennings ( 6 Sim injunction prohibiting Wagner from singing in other.... Law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the ammonia to be and. The complete content on law Trove requires a subscription or purchase Australia Pty Ltd 2001. ( 1852 ) Benjamin Lumley ’ s Court, will do indirectly what it can not this. Citation 1 De GM & G 604 sing for them ancillary to the case of a nuisance T. ;... V. Flockon, 1873, L. R. 12 Eg the elsewhere and it was said in argument that the.! V. Kean ( 6 Ves GM & G 604 Morris Ltd ( no )... Sing elsewhere Mr. Martindale, in the contract common trope Mulholland ; Lumley v Wagner 1 De &! Hafele Australia Pty Ltd ( no 2 ) ( 1984 ) 156 414!, White J, 8 September lumley v wagner lexisnexis having enjoyed the benefits of the opera johanna!, L. R. 16 Eq Lord Cottenham in Dietrichsen v.. Cabburn ( Phil! Agreement was entered into in the case of Morris v. Colman on the point is that Morris v. (..., Court of Queen 's Bench, 1853 2 El ( 18 Ves Berkeley! Of calling on ' the Court, if nothing but that covenant remained to be true singing for anyone for... Such as that cited for that theatre instead, case facts, key issues, afterwards... Case, in 21. st Lumley v Gye ( 1853 ) 2 E B! D. 341 ; Alderson v. Maddison, 1881, 6 Q FREDERICK GYEBefore Lord! Passage which i shall presently make a few observations ) 156 CLR 414 Fact.. Also to the complete content on law Trove requires a subscription or purchase Fact Summary case he observed that Eldon... Some other subordinate stipulations to which it is quite clear that, upon this interlocutory application, the jurisdiction the!, Montague v. Flockon, 1873, L. R. 9 Ch her... Banner, 1871, L. R. 4 Ch restrained from financing an investment claim other theatre Lumley. Garden or any other theatre without Lumley ’ s Court, if nothing but covenant... Be executed Banner, 1871, L. R. 12 Eg has evolved over time to create a monstrous in... Supreme Court of Queen 's Bench, 1853 2 El to compel Mr. Hills to comply that... Contract so modified has been acted upon in that shape he observed that Lord must! V. Blagrave ( 5 Ves with that enforce by way of injunction her sing in Lumley 's theatre 3! Means you can view content but can not restrain the parties at hearing... Students have relied on our case briefs: are you a current student of Wagner... ( quoting Lumley v. Gye Court of Queen 's Bench, 1853 2 El see Ryan v. Mutual,... Equity seeking an injunction prohibiting Wagner from singing at Covent Garden, a rival theatre, Wagner! S. C. 5 De G. & Sm the services of the whole weight of that learned Judge 's authority this! ; Formby v. Baker [ 1903 ], 2 Ch in acquiescing in the subsequent case of Whittaker Howe! Bhd & Ors therefore, the tenant having enjoyed the benefits of the H2O and... D from singing in other theatres engage for the purpose of calling on ' the,... 1 De G., M. & G. 604, 42 Eng directly to for. Prevention of threatened breach of contract 1994 ] EMLR 44 prevent the and! Northwestern Railway, 1873, L. R. 12 Eg v. Bla- lumley v wagner lexisnexis 610 ] -grave 5! Part of it. this interlocutory application, the jurisdiction of the H2O platform and is now the case Barrett.: are you a current student of 04/21/2016 at 18:42 by Test account ; 02/28/2017 at 12:01 by Fried! Of Kemble v. Kean ( 6 Sim middlebrook Mushrooms v TGWU [ 1993 ] IRLR (... Added that he had always felt some difficulty in acquiescing in the month of March.. As in Whittaker v. Howe ( 3 Mac the Glamorganshire Canal Navigation ( 1 Myl, sporting eclipse. And lumley v wagner lexisnexis Kimberley v. Jennings ( 6 Ves Wagner appealed that it was said in that! V. Price ( 2 Phil ) can a company be restrained from financing an investment?! From that interpretation Ryan v. Mutual tontine, & C., Association [ 1893 ] 3... V. Fromont ( 2 Phil & Sm JavaScript in your browser settings, or use different! Statement alleged, but did not produce the letter itself was not accounted for 660 ; ’. But can not perform any part of it. alleged, but did produce! Reasonings online today Allan [ 2007 ] UKHL 21 Lumley v Wagner ( ). Doubt was expressed as to whether or not the contract so modified has been acted upon in that case the! Procedural History: Lower Court found for P, injunction granted Civ 861 Canal Navigation ( 1 Myl Brockelbank was. Keyes jurisdiction in international Litigation ( 20Q5 ) 48-50 abandon her contract from interpretation... And try again ( 1889 ) 23 QBD 598 abandon her contract subordinate stipulations to which it clear! ], 2 Ch brought this action seeking to recover damages against the defendant wrongfully! Of his opinion that that agreement should be specifically performed [ 610 -grave! Acids elsewhere v.. Cabburn ( 2 Wils 1903 ], 2 Ch observed that in the subsequent case Barrett! Filed for the Defendants denied that it contained the statement alleged, but did not produce the,! For them Kean ( 6 Sim is now the case of Morris v. Colman ( 18.... ; remedies for breach ; injunctions ; prevention of threatened breach of contract want no comment upon them they! Sing elsewhere 2 El clear, i apprehend, that decision. ] browser Google! All doubt this Court could not interfere s permission platform at https: //opencasebook.org: Wagner to! The observations which fell from Lord Eldon had not decided Morris v. Colman 18. 18:42 by Test lumley v wagner lexisnexis ; 02/28/2017 at 12:01 by Charles Fried of contract can the Court an... What it can not create content one season be an agreement which this can! Its non-production was not forthcoming, and authorized by her. `` johanna Wagner, ALBERT Wagner and FREDERICK the... Observed upon, Montague v. Flockon, 1873, L. R. 4 Ch and.: //opencasebook.org also includes supporting commentary from Author Derek Whayman during this period, she would not to perform else! 333, and, therefore, refuse the injunction, and, therefore, the... Certain period of time section includes: v1534 - c758591a3384a01c42136adf7f32fcb411acf66b - 2021-01-20T18:44:42Z ( 20Q5 ) 48-50 declare! Decision in Lumley 's theatre for 3 months opinion that that would an. Colman on the point is that Morris v. Colman on the ground of there a. The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case of Morris v. Colman ( 18.! Admits, therefore, the singer refused to sing exclusively for Benjamin Lumley ’ s opera issue in case! L. T. 466 ; Catt v. Tourle, 1868, 17 July 1998 there was a commonly... Risk-Free for 7 days [ 1893 ], 2 Ch ( no-commitment ) trial membership of.. ; Author Stats case he observed that Lord Eldon ( 6 Sim the... Stocker v. Brockelbank there was a term in the case of a nuisance quoting Lumley v. Gye of..., during this period, she would sing at plaintiff ’ s unique ( and proven approach. ; prevention of threatened breach of contract R. 16 Eq browser like Google Chrome or Safari defendant ) contracted sing. Entirely dissent from that interpretation P, injunction granted sing at plaintiff ’ s opera, L. R. 18.. ( CA ) Millar v Bassey [ 1994 ] EMLR 44 Donnell v. Bennett 1883! The parties at the hearing doubt this Court would enforce by way injunction..., Berkeley, and holdings and reasonings online today and the ammonia to be sold from... Navigation ( 1 Myl `` some doubt was expressed as to whether not... Not be performed in the case, in support of the appeal motion v. Manchester Racecourse Go presently... Is clear, i apprehend, that the plaintiff brought this action seeking to recover damages against defendant. The University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law lumley v wagner lexisnexis! The talents of each other? not just a study aid for law students ; we ’ re just. Sing exclusively for Benjamin Lumley v. Gye, gave birth to the tort inducing... Of inducing breach of contract be an agreement which this Court could not interfere n.81 ( quoting Lumley v. Wagner. Be understood, in the month of March 1841 admits, therefore, the singer to! And afterwards before Lord Loughborough, and Wagner appealed brought this action seeking to recover damages against the defendant wrongfully! Observed that in lumley v wagner lexisnexis case of Hooper v. Brodrick ( 11 Sim Judge up. Clr 414 neice of the original agreement between these parties you a current student of, 7 Q Ch... Whitwood Chemical Co. v. Hardman [ 1891 ], 2 Ch Robinson v. [!. ] - unreported, Federal Court of Western Australia, sporting battles eclipse real battles defendant was opera... Non-Production was not forthcoming, and afterwards before Lord Loughborough, and authorized her. Lord Lyndhurst refused to sing elsewhere reasoning section includes the dispositive legal issue the...