18-5 - negative injunction. ISSUE: Did Carnera break his...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
MADISON SQUARE GARDE CORP, ILL., vs. CARNERA 18-5 US, 1931 FACTS: Madison Square Garden Corporation filled suit against Primo Carnera and was granted injunction; Carnera is now appealing. The contract that both parties entered into was one in which made Carnera refrain from boxing in other arenas. He also was not permitted to box with certain boxers which we listed in the contract with out Madison Square Gardens consent. Despite the stipulations of the contract, Carnera entered into another contract to box one of the men listed in his contract with Madison Square Garden. Upon discovery of Carnera’s new contract, Madison Square Garden filed for an order of injunction to be brought on Carnera. Carnes then claimed this was
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: negative injunction. ISSUE: Did Carnera break his contractual agreements? Did Madison Square Garden Corp have right to force injunction on Carnera? DECISION: The court ruled for Carnera. Order was affirmed REASON: The contract is valid and enforceable. IT contains a restrictive covenant, which may be given effect. Whether a preliminary injunction shall be issued under such circumstances rests in the sound decretion of the court. Preliminary in junction and required the plaintiff as condition upon its issuance to secure its own performance of the contract in suit with a bond $25,000 and to give a bond in the sum of $ 35, 000 to pay the defendant such damages as he may sustain by reason of the injunction....
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 04/23/2008 for the course SFS sfs taught by Professor Sdfsd during the Spring '08 term at DePaul.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online