52 BUULETIN 1106, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 



and unique and that no certain pecuniary standard exists for the 

 measurement of the damages. 



In the Washington case in which the cranberry association en- 

 joined the member from disposing of his cranberries to outside 

 parties the court stated that it would not be proper to decree specific 

 performance of the contract, as it would involve continuous super- 

 visor}^ duties by the court. However, it granted an injunction which 

 prevented the member from selling his cranberries outside of the 

 association and which operated to compel their delivery to the asso- 

 ciation if marketed at all, thus accomplishing indirectly through the 

 remedy of injunction what the court declared could not be done 

 through a decree for specific performance. 



In general, an injunction can not be obtained where the remedy at 

 law is adequate, which in most instances means that if damages will 

 compensate the party seeking the injunction his right thereto will 

 be denied. In a case ^^ decided by the Supreme Court of the United 

 states the court said : 



It is cont<Jnded that the injunctioia should have been refused because there 

 was a complete remedy at law. If the remedy at law is sufficient, equity can not 

 give relief, but it is not enough that there is a remedy at law ; it must be plain 

 and adequate, or in other words, as practical and efficient to the ends of justice 

 and its prompt administration as the remedy in equity. 



In a case ^- decided by a Federal court in 1921, involving the right 

 to an injunction to restrain the sale of a crop of pineapples and to 

 obtain a decree for specific performance thereof, appears the follow- 

 ing: 



It is true that equity will not decree the specific performance of a contract 

 which relates to personality in a case whei'e compensation in damages furnishes 

 a complete and satisfactory remedy. But the bill sets forth .special circum- 

 stances, the allegations of which it is unnecessary here to repeat, that show that 

 there was no adequate remedy at law. 



Instances can easily be conceived of in which produce contracted 

 for by a cooperative association would be vital and necessary to the 

 successful operation of the association. Under such circumstances it 

 is believed that a court w^ould enjoin a member from disposing of his 

 produce outside the association in violation of his contract. Such 

 facts would constitute the " special circumstances " just referred to. 



Where a cooperative association is restricted by its charter or the 

 statute under which it is organized to dealing with members, it would 

 seem that this fact would strengthen the case of such a cooperative 

 association seeking to obtain specific performance of its contract with 

 a member for the delivery of produce, or for an injunction to pre- 



" Watson V. Sutherland, 72 U. S. 74. 



62 Hawaiian Pineapple Co. v. Salt, 270 Fed. 749. 



