## Facts

- De Rivafinoli contracted with Corsetti, a professional opera singer, for performances in New York beginning November 1, 1833, for a defined season.
- De Rivafinoli arranged opera performances in reliance on Corsetti’s promised participation.
- De Rivafinoli learned Corsetti had accepted a conflicting engagement in Havana during the same period, suggesting Corsetti would not perform in New York.
- De Rivafinoli filed an equity suit seeking (1) specific performance compelling Corsetti to sing and (2) a writ of *ne exeat* to prevent Corsetti from leaving the state.
- The court issued the *ne exeat* ex parte with bail set at a level Corsetti could not post, resulting in his detention.
- Corsetti moved to discharge the writ, prompting a hearing on whether *ne exeat* was proper in aid of the requested relief.

## Issues

1. Whether a court of equity may decree specific performance of a personal-services contract requiring artistic skill and ongoing performance.
2. Whether a writ of *ne exeat* may be used to restrain a defendant’s departure to coerce performance of a personal-services contract.
3. Whether *ne exeat* is available where the plaintiff’s claim is essentially for unliquidated damages for breach of contract rather than a definite equitable demand to money or specific property.

## Decision

- The court held that equity will not specifically enforce a contract for personal services such as an opera singer’s engagement.
- The court held that *ne exeat* could not be used to restrain Corsetti from leaving the jurisdiction to induce or coerce performance of such a contract.
- The court discharged the writ of *ne exeat*, resulting in Corsetti’s release, and left De Rivafinoli to pursue any remedy at law for damages.

## Legal Principles

- Specific performance is generally unavailable for personal-services contracts, especially where performance depends on personal skill, taste, or discretion and would require continuing judicial supervision.
- The writ of *ne exeat* is an extraordinary restraint on liberty and is limited to situations where departure would defeat enforcement of a defined equitable right, typically involving a definite sum of money or specific property.
- *Ne exeat* is not a proper device to secure performance of a contract of hire or to imprison a party as practical compulsion to perform.
- When the plaintiff’s claim is essentially for damages for breach of contract, the availability of a legal remedy weighs against extraordinary equitable restraints.

## Conclusion

The court refused to compel an opera singer’s affirmative performance and rejected the use of *ne exeat* as a coercive tool to force compliance with a personal-services contract, discharging the writ and directing the plaintiff to any legal remedy for damages.


De Rivafinoli v. Corsetti, 4 Paige Ch. 264 (N.Y. Ch. 1833)