50 BULLETIN" 1106, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 



purchased in the market, then a decree for specific performance will 

 generally be allowed. In a New Jersey case *^ the plaintiffs, who con- 

 ducted a canning factory having a capacity of about a million cans 

 of tomatoes, applied for the specific performance of a contract 

 whereby the defendant agreed to sell to them all the tomatoes grown 

 on certain land. The contract was specifically enforced on the 

 ground that the evidence showed that preparations for the season, 

 which lasted but six weeks, had been based on the capacity of the 

 factory and that tomatoes of a similar kind could not be obtained 

 when needed. The court said: 



The business and its needs are extraordinary in tliat the maintenance of all 

 of the conditions prearranged to secure the pack are a necessity to secure the 

 successful operation of the plant. * * * The objection that to specifically 

 perform the contract personal services are required will not divest the court of 

 its powers to preserve the benefits of the contract. Defendant may be re- 

 stricted from selling the crop to others, and, if necessary, a receiver can be 

 appointed to harvest the crop. 



The remedy of injunction is often employed to supplement a de- 

 cree for specific performance, especially in cases like those now under 

 discussion. 



INJUNCTIONS. 



An injunction is an order issued by a court of equity requiring a 

 party to do or to refrain from doing certain acts.*^ Injunctions are 

 usually issued to prevent a threatened injury or to restrain the doing 

 of wrongful acts. They are less frequently granted to require the 

 performance of certain acts. Whether an injunction will be issued 

 depends upon certain well-established equitable principles. It is 

 generally said that the granting of an injunction rests within the 

 sound discretion of the court and that one can not be obtained as a 

 matter of right. However, if the case made out by the applicant 

 for an injunction is perfectly clear, and all the requirements of the 

 law for the issuance of an injunction have been complied with, he is 

 entitled to an injunction as a matter of right.*^ 



What right has a cooperative association to enjoin a member from 

 disposing of his produce contrary to the contract entered into with 

 the association? This question, like the one involving specific per- 

 formance, can not be answered categorically. It is believed that the 

 only case thus far passed upon by a court of last resort in which a 

 cooperative association sought an injunction to restrain one of its 

 members from disposing of produce which he had contracted to de- 

 liver to the association is one decided by the Supreme Court of Wash- 

 es Curtice Bros. v. Catts, 72 N. J. Eq. 831, 66 Atl. 935. 

 *s 22 Cyc. 740. 

 " Sullivan v. Jones & L. Steel Co., 208 Pa. St. 540, 57 Atl. 1065, 66 L. B. A. 712. 



