Fitzpatrick v. Michael

Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1939.

177 Md. 248, 9 A.2d 639.

Dawson, pp. 170-173


Facts: The plaintiff was hired by the defendant as a maid and other stuff, in return for a promise of a bunch of his stuff when he died.


Issue: Shall the court order the defendant to specifically perform the agreement?


Rule: There can be no remedy in equity (specific performance) if there is an adequate remedy at law (cash money).


Analysis: The contract was for personal services, and the court says that generally such contracts will not be specifically enforced.  The court will not force the defendant to accept the services of the plaintiff against his will.


Conclusion: The court rules that the plaintiff is not entitled to relief in equity.






Back to Enforcement in Equity

Back to Casebook Notes