Case Name: William T. Levine et al. vs. Bernard Michel
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1883-12
Citations: 35 La. Ann. 1121
Docket Number: No. 8721
Parties: William T. Levine et al. vs. Bernard Michel.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 35
Pages: 1121–1129

Head Matter:
No. 8721.
William T. Levine et al. vs. Bernard Michel.
In Rn injunction suit to prevent the continuance of the acts complained of, plaintiffs alleging that those acts, if persisted in by defendant, will cause them more than $2,000 damages this Court has jurisdiction of the caso. . • ' ‘ ,
Under the Statutes'of the State relative to the appointment of Branch Pilots of the Port of Hew Orleans, ¿ñd regulating their duties, a partnership or association of the said pilots, though State officers, for the purpose of furthering and protecting their common interests, is not illegal. Under the language of these Statutes anch association is authorized, an£ excepts the pilots from any legal principio which would forbid such an association of State officers for the purposes declared.
Articles 1926,192?, 1929 of the Code, authorizing specific performance of obligations to do or not to do,in certain cases, apply to contracts of partnership as well as to other conventional obligations. 4 . t
Where, by a valid contract of partnership, a partner bound himself: 1st, to devote his time, labor, skill, etc., to the partnership business ; 2d, not to carry on the partnership business otherwise than as a partner, the latter negative obligation may be enforced by injunction, although the former cannot be specifically enforced.
APPEAL from tile Twenty-fourth District Court, Parish of Plaque-mines. Bwaudais, J.
J. M. Beckwith for Plaintiffs and Appellees:
1. Under the ruling in 32 Ac. 1135,118?; 34 An. 834, and in Ho. 8749 of the present docket, this Court is without jurisdiction to hear this case pn.appeal. •
2. The,agreement of association between the Branch Pilots of the Port of Hew Orleans, set out in the record, is lawful, and is not governed by the law relating to partnership (R, S. 2707-2709) being specially authorized and recognized by statute.
3. If the articles of association in the record are held to he partnership, the Coúrt will enforce specific performance of the contract, both ofthe affirmative co venan t to contribute to the partnership the authority, skill and labor of the defendant, and the negative covenant on his part not to enter into a like business on his account, or with others, to the injury of his associates. Marble Co. vs. Ripley, 10 Wall. 339; Chitty on Contracts, 11th ed. 341; 2 Term Reps. 482; 7 Mod. 116; 13 East. 538; 6 Simmons, 333; 9 Condensed Eng. Chancery Reps. 236; Parsons on Partnership, 298; 16 Vcs. 382; 4 E. D. Smith, 135; 13 Eng. Law and Equity Reps. 252} 2 Edward’s Chancery Reps. 529; Wintz vs. Vogt, 3 An. 16. ’
2?. H. McCakb and F. O. Hacharte for Defendant and Appellant:-
Under the regime of the civil law no one can be enjoined to carry on a partnership requiring the exercise of skill and industry. The only action to which the recalcitrant partner subjects himself for failing to comply with the partnership contract, is a suit for the damages to the partnership occasioned by his acts. Institutes of Justinian, Lib. Ill, Tit. XXVI, § IX; Bail o. Moulong et Brisson, Cour de Lyon, 18 Mai, 1823; R. C. C. 2862; 13 An. 519. L’inéxécution volontaire de ses engagements par un associó le rend passible de dommagesiutérets. Troplong, Confcrat do Société, 988,
A partner who has agreed to furnish his skill and labor should he deemed to have contracted, a hiring of his services. Pardessus, Cours de Droit Commercial, Tome IV, Ho. 989.
In an obligation to do or not to do, the creditor cannot coerce his debtor to a performance of his contract without violating his liberty. Jifemo potest praedse cogi ad factum. Pothior, Traite des Obligations, partie 1, chapitre II, § 11, No. 157; Duranton, Liv. Ill, Tit. Ill, No. 453,; Laurent, Tome XVI, No. 459.
A dispute arising in a pilotage partnership cannot be settled by injunction. 26 An. 311. Nor can the Court, by injunction, direct or control a public officer in the performance of his duties. 34 An. 740 ; 24 An. IG.
A chancery injunction bill is unknown to and unauthorized by the Louisiana Code of Praotice. In this State a writ of injunction is merely ancillary to a suit—a conservatory act aocom* ’ panying a principal demand. It is synonymous with the common law writ of prohibition. ; ' 99 IT. S. 380.
Compelling the defendant, by injunction, to specifically perform the obligations stipulated in the articles of co-partnership, violates the very letter of the law authorizing the Branch Pilots to “ form themselves into one or more voluntary private associations.” R. S. 1870, Sec. 2707. Such association ceases to be voluntary and becomes compulsory when kept together by a mandatory injunction.
The following clause in ft contract of partnership, “ said parties being bound to the provisions of this article in the penal sum of $5,000 each, and forfeiture of all right, title and interest in this partnership,” is a conditional novation, an agreement that if the first obligation ' was not fulfilled, it should be extinguished and supplanted by the second. The creditor cannot, in such case, enforce the primary obligation. Digest Book XLIV, Tit. VII, Law « 44, § 6; Pothier, Traite des Obligations, Partie IT, Chap. V. No. 342; Maroadé, Tomo 4, No. 651; Duranton, Tome 10, No. 485; Idem, Tome It, No. 338.
A creditor cannot exact the enforcement of a primary obligation and at the same time reserve his right to claim the penalty. A judgment permitting such reservation should-not he affirmed. R. C. C., Arts. 2124, 2125; 18 An. 276.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Todd, J.
This is a,suit substantially by the Pilots' Association, composed of the Branch Pilots of the Port of New Orleans, against the defendant, a member of the same association, to compel him to a specific performance of his engagements under the articles of agreement entered into by said members when the oi'ganization of the association took place; and to enjoin him from the commission of certain acts designated specifically and at large in the petition, and charged to be in violation of his said engagement and obligations to the company.
We are met at the threshold of our inquiry into the case, by a suggestion of the plaintiffs' and appellees' counsel that this Court is without jurisdiction of the appeaí—ratione material—and under this suggestion we have made a careful examination of the pleadings and the 'record, with a view to determine the question.
. The main object of the suit, as stated, seems to be to preserve intact, and to protect from infringement on the part of any member, the articles of agreement which form the basis of the association.
There is no moneyed demand made against the defendant, exeept for the payment of the costs of suit. There is, however, an allegation in substance that, if the defendant is permitted to continue in the commission of the acts complained of, it would cause damage to the amount of $2,000. With respect to the acts already done, of which complaint is made, tlio rightis reservedin the petition to claim damages therefor in another suit, and this reservation is made in the judgment.
An injunction issued, as stated, to restrain the defendant from committing the acts specified as violative of his obligations to the association. This injunction was set aside on bond, and the plaintiffs appealed from this order. We note that, in the. petition for the appeal, it is asserted that the damage the defendant will inflict, while the writ of injunction is suspended, exceeds two thousand dollars per month. The object of the suit is to prevent or avoid such damage. It is plain that the Court has jurisdiction.