
    (75 South. 906)
    EDMUNDSON-RANDLE DRUG CO. v. PARTIN MFG. CO. et al.
    (6 Div. 460.)
    (Supreme Court of Alabama.
    May 10, 1917.)
    1. Injunction <&wkey;60 — Contract for Personal Services.
    Where a manufacturing company contracted with a drug company to engineer an exclusive prize contest calculated to increase the sales of the drug company, on the manufacturing company’s breach the drug company was entitled to have its contract for personal services negatively enforced by enjoining its breach.
    [Ed. JSTote. — For other cases, see Injunction, Cent. Dig. §§ 117-1119.]
    2. Injunction <&wkey;>103(3) — Denial of Temporary Writ — Dissolution—Inequity.
    Where a manufacturing company agreed with one drug company to conduct an exclusive prize voting contest to increase sales, and thereafter contracted with other drug companies in the same locality who did not know of the contract with the first company and expended their money and labor in the initiation of the scheme; in the first company’s suit to compel the manufacturing company to perform its contract, the judicial discretion of the court is properly exercised in denial of temporary writ of injunction against the two companies or in its subsequent dissolution if improvidently granted in the first instance.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Injunction, Gent. Dig. §§ 359, 300, 367.]
    <Sc=oFor other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in ail Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
    Appeal from City Court of Bessemer; J. C. B. Gwin, Judge.
    Bill by the Edmundson-Randle Drug Company against, the Partin Manufacturing Company and others, to enjoin certain prize voting contests. From the granting of a motion dissolving the temporary injunction granted, complainants appeal.
    Affirmed.
    Complainant is engaged in the drug business in Bessemer, the Partin Manufacturing Company is a foreign corporation, and the Edwards-White Drug Company and the Lewis-Read Drug Company are both doing a drug store business in or near Bessemer. The purpose of the bill is to enjoin the Par-tin Manufacturing Company from putting on and conductingj or aiding in conducting, a certain scheme for increasing the business of the respondent drug company by the use and distribution of a number of valuable prizes in voting contests, which prizes -are supplied by the Partin Manufacturing Company, for a valuable consideration in money, and its guaranty of a definite increase in business, and also to enjoin said drug company from proceeding with said scheme under their contract with the said Partin Manufacturing Company. The gravamen of the bill is that complainant, who is a business competitor of said respondent drug company, entered into a prior contract with said Partin Manufacturing Company, to put on and conduct for complainant the identical scheme, and that said Partin Drug Company’s salesmen and agents who contracted with plaintiff in the premises, while acting in the scope of Ms authority, expressly agreed with complainant that it should have the exclusive right to operate, within the district named, said business-getting scheme under the direction of, and with the aid and advice of, said Partin Company’s representatives who would be sent to Bessemer for that purpose.
    The bill alleges that after said Partin Company’s agents had come to Bessemer and started to put on the deal for complainant, they were halted and recalled by their principal, and soon thereafter complainant learned that said Partin Company had violated its contract with complainant by contracting to put on the same scheme for the respondent drug company, and by actually doing so to its representatives.’ The bill shows that complainant gave its notes to the Partin Company for $398 for the goods and services rendered, and to be furnished by it. It is not' alleged that the respondent drug companies, or either of them, had any knowledge as to complainant’s prior contract with the Partin Company, or any obligation on its part not to conduct such an enterprise for any other drug store business in that territory. General and special demurrers were filed by both of the respondent drug companies. A sworn answer was filed by the Lewis-Read Drug Company, denying that complainant had any exclusive right, or any valid contract therefor in the premises, and denying also all the other equities of the bill. This answer attaches as exhibits copies of the written contract' severally made with the Partin Drug Company, with complainant and respondent drug companies, showing that .the Edwards-WMte Company had purchased thereunder prizes to the amount of $398, and the Lewis-Read Drug Company to the amount of $1,250, besides a $600 prize on the outside, to be distributed as aforesaid. The answer also avers that respondent will suffer a great pecuniary loss if its enterprise is now interfered with. A temporary injunction is issued on the filing of the bill, and the respondent drug company moved for its dissolution, for want of equity in the bill, and Apon the sworn answer filed, and the affidavits in support thereof, which motion was granted.
    Estes .& Jones, of Bessemer, for appellants.
    Huey & Welch, of Bessemer, for appellee.
   SOMERVILLE; J.

The principle here invoked by the complainant company has been stated by Mr. Pomeroy as follows:

“Where one person agrees to render personal services to another, which require and presuppose a special knowledge, skill, and ability in the employé, so that, in case of default, the same services could not easily be obtained from others, although the aflirmative specific performance of the contract is beyond the power of the court, its performance will be negatively enforced by enjoining- its breach.” Pom. Spec. Perf. (2d Ed.) § 24.

This assumes, of course, that the threatened breach will result in injury to the complainant, for the redress of which his legal remedies are inadequate.

We think the allegations of the bill make a case for complainant within the operation of this principle. 22 Cyc. 844, C; 5 Pom. Eq. Jur. (3d Ed.) § 296; Iron Age Pub. Co. v. W. U. T. Co., 83 Ala. 498, 3 South. 449, 3 Am. St. Rep. 758. Hence, so far as the respondent, the Partin Manufacturing Com! pany, is alone concerned, the equity of the bill would authorize and support the writ of injunction granted by the court below.

But the bill shows that the local respondents, the two drug companies, have innocently contracted with the Partin Company, and have expended their money and labor in the initiation of the scheme propounded by the Partin Company, and that interference with them now will inflict upon them undeserved loss and inconvenience.

In such a case as this, we think the judicial discretion is properly exercised in the denial of the temporary writ, or in its subsequent dissolution if improvidently granted in tbe first instance. This policy is, indeed, fully sustained by' the authorities. Roosen v. Carlson, 46 App. Div. 233, 62 N. Y. Supp. 157; Foster v. Ballenberg (C. C.) 43 Fed. 821; Amusement Co. v. Hughes, 22 Hawaii, 554; 22 Cyc. 854, d; 5 Pom. Eq. Jur. (3d Ed.) § 221, p. 498.

In this view of the case, we need not, and do not, consider other questions raised and argued by counsel.

The decree appealed from will be affirmed.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. J., and MAYFIELD, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.  