70 BULLETIN 110 6, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 
ground that it is uncertain whether the $10 per cow is to be deter- 
mined on a per-day basis or once and for all, or whether it would be 
applicable if a member marketed outside the association the milk 
from some cows but not from all. 89 
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE 
" Specific performance may be defined as the actual accomplish- 
ment of a contract between parties bound to fulfill it, for a decree 
for specific performance is nothing more or less than means of com- 
pelling a party to do precisely what he ought to have done without 
being coerced by a court." 90 
It should be borne in mind that the term " specific performance " 
is the name of an equitable remedy, by means of which a person is 
affirmatively compelled by the court to perform his contract. It is 
true that growers are frequently enjoined from disposing of their 
products outside the association of which they are members, in vio- 
lation of their contracts; and this, generally speaking, results in 
the contract actually being performed, but, strictly speaking, this 
is not what is meant by the term " specific performance." The co- 
operative statutes that have been enacted by the States during the 
last few years usually contain a provision stating that an associa- 
tion shall be entitled, in the event of a breach or threatened breach 
of its marketing contract, "'to an injunction to prevent the further 
breach of the contract and to a decree of specific performance 
thereof." 91 
Many cases have been before the courts involving the right of 
cooperative associations to the remedies of specific performance and 
injunction on account of the statutory provision in question. In 
Kansas, it was held that the statutory provision was virtually man- 
datory on the court, at least under normal conditions, and that the 
legislature was competent to enact a rule of this kind which was 
binding on the courts. 92 In States other than" Kansas substantially 
similar conclusions have been reached in cases involving the right 
of associations to the remedies of injunction and specific perform- 
ance under the statutory provision in question. 93 
In many cases brought by cooperative associations against their 
members to prevent them from violating their contracts, the asso- 
ciation in question has asked the court to enjoin the member from 
disposing of his products to third persons, without asking the 
court to decree the specific performance of the contract involved. 
Some of these cases will be discussed later, under the heading 
" Injunctions." 
89 Pierce County Dairymen's Ass'n v. Templin, 124 Wash. 567, 215 P. 352 ; see also 
Watertown Milk Producers' Co-op. Ass'n v. Van Camp Packing Co., Wis. . 225 
N. W. 209. 
90 25 R. C. L. 203. 
91 See par. (b) of sec. 18 of the Bingham Cooperative Marketing Act of Kentucky, on 
p. 123 in appendix. 
92 Kansas Wheat Growers' Ass'n v. Schulte. 113 Kan. 672. 216 P. 311. 
93 Lee v. Clearwater Growers' Ass'n. Fla. . ill So. 722 ; Texas Farm Bureau 
Cotton Ass'n v. StovaU, 113 Tex. 273, 253 S. W. 1101 ; South Carolina Cotton Growers' 
Co-op. Ass'n v. English. 135 S. C. 19. 133 S. E. 542 ; Rifle Potato Growers' Co-op. Ass'n v. 
Smith, 78 Colo. 171, 240 P. 937 ; Arkansas Cotton Growers' Co-op. Ass'n v. Brown. 168 
Ark. 504. 270 S. W. 946 ; McCauley v. Arkansas Rice Growers' Co-op. Ass'n. 171 Ark 1155, 
287 S. W. 419 ; Warren v. Alabama Farm Bureau Cotton Ass'n. 213 Ala. 61. 104 So. 
264 ; Harrell v. Cane Growers' Co-op. Ass'n, Ga. , 126 S. E. 531 ; Colma Vege- 
table Ass'n v. Bonetti. Cal. App. , 267 P. 172 ; Nebraska Wheat Growers' Ass'n 
v. Smith 115 Neb. 177, 212 N. W. 39; Brown v. Staple Cotton Co-op. Ass'n, 132 Miss. 
859, 96 So. 849. 
