LEGAL PHASES OF COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATIONS. 51 



ington.*^ This case involved a cranberry association which had en- 

 tered into contracts with growers under which it was made their ex- 

 clusive sales agent for the sale and marketing of the cranberries 

 grown by them. The contract provided that the grower would not 

 sell any of his cranberries outside of the association. The Supreme 

 Court of Washington affirmed the judgment of the lower court grant- 

 ing an injunction in favor of the association which prevented the 

 member from breaching his contract. 



As a rule, when a court grants specific performance, an injunctiois 

 will be issued to restrain the party from acting contrary to the 

 terms of the order decreeing specific performance. In other words, 

 the remedy of specific performance and the remedy of injunction are 

 both frequently employed in the same case to bring about the result 

 desired. In the Federal case discussed under the head of specific per- 

 formance, in which specific performance was required of a contract 

 for the delivery of oil, the court also directed that the defendant be 

 enjoined from disposing of the oil in violation of the contract. la 

 other words, the defendant was required to deliver the oil in accord- 

 ance with the contract and was enjoined from disposing of it in vio- 

 lation thereof. And probably in every case where a court decreed 

 the specific performance of a contract of a cooperative association 

 with one of its members for the delivery of produce, an injunction 

 could be obtained enjoining him from disposing of his produce to 

 other parties. Generally the courts will refuse to decree the specific 

 performance of a contract for personal services or of a contract 

 where the personal element is the dominant one. An extreme illus- 

 tration of the type of contract referred to is one calling for the 

 painting of a portrait. The personal element migiit be a factor with 

 a court in refusing to decree the specific performance of a contract 

 of a cooperative association. 



Even in cases where the personal element is dominant the courts 

 will, in a proper case, enjoin a party from, doing the thing called for 

 by the contract for any other party, but will refuse to require spe- 

 cific performance. 



In a Pennsylvania case ^^ a baseball player of unusual and extraor- 

 dinary ability and note who had contracted to play with a cer- 

 tain team, and not to play with any other, was enjoined from playing 

 with any team other than the one with whom he was under contract. 

 There have been many cases analogous in principle with the one just 

 referred to in which similar conclusions were reached.^" Emphasis 

 in these cases is laid on the fact that the services are extraordinary 



^Washington Cranberry Growers' Ass'n. v. Moore, (Wash.) 201 Pac. 773; also 204 

 Pac. 811 ; in accord Phez v. Salem Fruit Union, (Oregon) 201 Pac. 222, 205 Pac. 970. 

 « Philadelphia Ball Club v. Lajoie, 202 Pa. St. 210, 51 Atl. 973, 59 L. R. A. 227. 

 50 14 R. C. L. 386. 



