Washington Cranberry Growers Ass'n v. Moore

Citations

• 117 Wash. 430
• 25 A.L.R. 1077
• 201 P. 773
• 1921 Wash. LEXIS 881

Syllabus

<p>Contracts (45) —Monopolies-—Validity—Restraint op Trade— Controlling Production and Price op Commodity. A contract requiring a grower of cranberries to ship all the crop grown by him to an association for the purpose of marketing and sale with the object of enabling the growers to obtain a uniform price for their product, but which does not operate to limit production or control the price in any particular locality, is not void as against public policy, nor as contravening art. 12, § 22, of the state constitution against mo-, nopolies, nor the Federal anti-trust act.</p> <p>Injunction (24) —Contracts—Restraining Breach — Damages as Adequate Remedy. Injunction will lie to restrain the breach of a contract, thereby indirectly effecting its specific performance, where the intent was to rely on performance and the contract is one which could not be specifically enforced in a court of equity by reason of the fact that it would require the performance of continuous duties.</p> <p>Same (24). A breach of a contract may be properly restrained, where it provides for damages in case of a grower’s failure to deliver his crops to an association for marketing, merely as an estimate, but recites it is impossible to fix the actual damages sustained in case of a grower’s failure to abide by the agreement, and the purport of the whole ■ contract shows that .the parties intended to rely upon the performance of the covenant and not merely on. the payment of damages for the breach thereof.</p> <p>Mackintosh, Holcomb, and Hovey, JJ., dissent.</p>