Personal Services and the 13th Amendment Flashcards
The Case of Mary Clark: Rule of Law
Specific performance cannot be awarded when the contract is for personal service.
The Case of Mary Clark: Facts
Johnston (plaintiff) alleged that Clark (defendant) was his servant by indenture. Clark executed and acknowledged the contract, whereby she agreed to serve Johnston for 20 years. The circuit court deemed the indenture sufficient and remanded Clark to Johnston’s custody. Clark appealed to the Supreme Court of Judicature of the State of Indiana.
The Case of Mary Clark: issue
Can a contract for personal service be enforced through specific performance?
The Case of Mary Clark: holding
No, a contract for personal service cannot be enforced through specific performance. Indiana recognizes that all citizens, including those of color, can enter into valid agreements. However, a contract for personal service is akin to slavery. Enforcing such a contract under which one is required to perform for the other, often for a number of years, creates a state of demoralization and degradation for the performing party that conflicts with this state’s recognition of equality in contracting. Indiana does recognize apprenticeship contracts, but apprentices are not personally entering into contracts for personal service. Apprentices are subject to the will and guidance of their parents and such contracts are enforced on the grounds that parents have authority to enter into them for their children, not upon a theory of specific performance. In the current matter, Clark is of legal age and has the right to regulate her own conduct. Clark does not intend to perform under a contract of personal service for Johnston and thus her involuntary servitude cannot be required. The judgment of the circuit court is reversed and Clark is discharged from Johnston’s service.
Lumley v. Wagner: rule of law
A court of equity may impose a negative injunction on an individual, preventing her from doing something.
Lumley v. Wagner: facts
Johanna Wagner (defendant) contracted to sing exclusively for Benjamin Lumley’s (plaintiff) theatre for one season. Subsequently, Covent Garden, a rival theatre, convinced Wagner to break her contract with Lumley and sing for that theatre instead. Lumley demanded that the court issue an injunction prohibiting Wagner from singing at Covent Garden or any other theatre without Lumley’s permission. Wagner countered that the court could not issue an injunction preventing her from performing because that was equivalent to issuing an injunction requiring specific performance, which was beyond the court’s power. The trial court granted the injunction, and Wagner appealed.
Lumley v. Wagner: issue
May a court of equity impose a negative injunction on an individual, preventing her from doing something?
Lumley v. Wagner: holding
Yes, a court of equity imposes a negative injunction on an individual, preventing her from doing something. Although an equity court will not specifically enforce a personal services contract, it may enjoin the party breaching the personal services contract from providing her services to another party. In this case, the court cannot force Wagner to sing for Lumley. However, the court may enjoin Wagner from singing for someone else, specifically Covent Garden. Although this injunction may indirectly induce Wagner to sing for Lumley, it is not a direct court mandate and thus is permitted.
Ford v. Jermon: rule of law
Specific performance cannot be awarded for breach of a personal service contract, especially when the specific performance is requested of an actor.
Ford v. Jermon: facts
Jermon (defendant) entered into a contract with Ford (plaintiff) under which she would act at theaters that he managed. Upon breach, Ford brought suit for specific performance of the written agreement. Ford filed a bill in equity in the district court, demanding that Jermon be required to act as agreed, but also be enjoined from acting at any theater not managed by him. Ford later amended his demand to only ask that Jermon be enjoined from acting for others.
Ford v. Jermon: issue
Can specific performance be awarded for the breach of a contract requiring the personal service of an actor?
Ford v. Jermon: holding
No. One cannot be required to perform personal service because compelling obedience through imprisonment is too harsh. It is also impossible to know whether one is performing under the contract sincerely without appointing someone to oversee that performance. Not only can specific performance not be awarded for personal service contracts, but enjoining one from entering into future agreements cannot be awarded as an indirect form of compulsion. This indirect approach will also not be awarded even when the parties specifically contract for it. In the current matter, Ford relies upon Lumley v. Wagner, 42 Eng. Rep. 687 (1852), wherein such relief was awarded. However, Lumley will be disregarded because there have been many cases regarding this issue that have reached opposite results. In those cases, it is clear that specific performance cannot be awarded in the cases of actors and the like because they could choose to perform under the contract only grudgingly, making such performance worth very little. Accordingly, the case is dismissed.
Duff v. Russell: rule of law
A party breaching a contract for personal services may be enjoined from providing like services under another contract, even when there is no explicit language to enjoin such future agreements.
Duff v. Russell: facts
Russell (defendant) entered into a contract with Duff (plaintiff) to become a member of his opera company. Russell agreed to appear as a soprano for two seasons in any operas that Duff produced. Russell agreed to give seven performances a week. The agreement also provided that Duff would supply the costumes for the operas. The agreement did not explicitly provide that Russell could not perform in other shows. At the end of the second season, Russell not only refused to perform for Duff, but she had agreed to perform for a rival company. Russell complained that the costume Duff provided, namely the tights that she was required to wear, were unhealthy. Just before refusing to perform for Duff, Russell sent a letter to Duff informing him that she would perform in the upcoming opera, including wearing the required tights, if he would increase her pay. After Russell quit, Duff was unable to replace Russell for the remainder of the season with an actress and singer who had the same qualifications and reputation as Russell. Duff sought a preliminary injunction to enjoin Russell from performing for his rival. The injunction was granted. Russell appealed to the Superior Court of New York City to determine whether the injunction was proper.
Duff v. Russell: issue
Can a party breaching a contract for personal services be enjoined from providing like services under another contract when the contract does not contain explicit language prohibiting such future agreements?
