50 BULLETIN 1106, TJ. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 
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 
first case passed upon by a court of last resort in which a coopera- 
tive association obtained an injunction restraining one of its mem- 
bers from disposing of produce which he had contracted to deliver 
to the association was one decided by the Supreme Court of Wash- 
ington. 49 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 Supreme Court of Washington affirmed the 
judgment of the lower court granting an injunction in favor of the 
association which prevented the member from breaching his contract. 
Since the decision in this case there have been a number of decisions 
in harmony therewith. 
As a rule, when a court grants specific performance, an injunction 
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. In 
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 might 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. 
40 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. 
a Hollingsworth v. Texas Hay Ass'n,, (Texas) 246 S. W. 1068 ; Oregon, Growers' Co- 
operative Ass'n. v. Lentz, (Oregon) 212 Pac. 811 ; Washington Cooperative E. & P. 
Ass'n., (Wash.) 210 Pac. 806; Tobacco Growers' Cooperative Association v. Jones, (1923) 
North Carolina . 
