Kemble v Kean
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 December 1829 |
| Date | 01 December 1829 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 58 E.R. 619
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
See Lumley v. Wagner, 1852, 1 De G. M. & G. 623; 42 E. R. 695.
Jurisdiction. Agreement. Injunction.
SIM. 333. KEMBLE V. KEAN 619 [333] kemble v. kean.(!) Dec. \, 1829. [See Lumley v. Wagner, 1852, 1 De G. M. & G. 623; 42 E. R. 695.] Jurisdiction. Agreement. Injunction. The proprietors of Covent Garden Theatre agreed with an actor that he should act for twenty-four nights, during a certain period of time, at their theatre, and that, in the meantime, he should not act at any other place in London. Held, that the Court cannot enforce the positive part of the contract, and therefore, it will riot restrain by injunction in breach of the negative part. In February 1828 an agreement in writing to the following effect was made between the Plaintiffs, who were the proprietors of Covent Garden Theatre, and the Defendant, a celebrated aetor; that the Defendant should act at the theatre for 24 nights, at a salary of 50 for each night; that the engagement should commence on the 1st October, and conclude before Christmas then next; that the Defendant should give the preference to the Plaintiffs, in the renewal of an engagement, and should not peiform at any other theatre in London during the period of his engagement. The Defendant, accordingly, acted 16 nights; but was unable to complete his engagement before Christmas 1828, in consequence of an accident that happened to the gas-works in the theatre. An agreement was then made between the parties for a new engagement to commence after Christmas 1828, for 12 nights' performance (instead of the eight that remained under the [334] first engagement) upon the same terms as before. The Defendant, accordingly, acted on the nights of the 5th and 8th of January 1829, and was to have acted again on the 12th, but, on that night, he was unable to appear before the public. Shortly afterwards, the Defendant having expressed a wish to suspend his performance in London and retire into the country .to recruit his health and study some new parts, the Plaintiff Kemble informed him, by letter dated the 21st January 1829, that the Plaintiffs acceded to his wish, it being understood that he would be ready on the commencement of the season 1830-31 to return, when required, to his engagement, of which 10 nights remained uncompleted, and that, in the meantime, he was not to act in London. The Defendant wrote an answer to this letter, on the 22d of January, stating that he .accepted the proposals made by the Plaintiffs. In November 1830 the Defendant returned to London, and, shortly afterwards, entered into an engagement to act at Drury Lane Theatre; upon...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Loring v Thomas
...next case of Gray v, Garman (2 Hare, 268), which was very similar to the last case, there was a similar decision. In Tytherleigh v..Harbin (6 Sim. 333) the issue of a predeceased child were held entitled to take, on the ground that the words of the will referred not to the gift previously m......
-
Lumley v Wagner
...agent, or manager and actor, this Court will, in all such cases, abstain from interfering, either directly or indirectly; Kemble v. Kean (6 Sim. 333), Kimberley v. Jennings (6 Sim. 340), Stacker v. Brackelbank (3 Mac. & G. 250). [THE lord chancellor. In the case of Stacker v. Brockelbank th......
-
Hill v Gomme
...property over which he might exercise a free power of disposing, thus taking away every inducement to future exertion. Kemble v. Kean (6 Sim. 333), Kimberley v. Jennings (6 Sim. 340). Lastly. That the executors, who had taken every precaution-who had used every exertion, by advertisements a......
-
Austen v Boys
...Guy (4 East, 190), Hitchcock v. Coker (6 A. & E. 438), Elves v. Crofts (10 C. B. 241), Cooper v. Watlinytdn (2 Chit. 451), Kemble v. Kean (6 Sim. 333), Litmley v. Wagner (1 De G. M. & G. 604), Const v. Harris (T. & R. 496), Peacock v. Peacock (16 Ves. 49), Dartiey v. J-Hiitaker (4 Drew. 134......