## Facts

- John Madden and John Rosseter each owned a one-half interest in a valuable thoroughbred stallion, Friar Rock.
- The parties executed a written agreement (June 29, 1918) allocating possession and breeding use of the stallion by seasons and years.
- Under the agreement, Rosseter had possession and use in California for the 1919 and 1920 breeding seasons, which occurred without dispute.
- For the 1921 season, Madden’s contract right to possess and use the stallion commenced, but Rosseter refused to perform unless Madden accepted a new, unsatisfactory agreement.
- At the time of suit, the stallion remained physically in California, while Madden sought relief in New York.

## Issues

1. Whether a New York court of equity may issue a mandatory injunction compelling a defendant within its personal jurisdiction to deliver specific personal property located in another state.
2. Whether equitable relief (including specific performance-like relief) is proper where the subject matter is a unique chattel and time-sensitive contract performance is at stake.
3. Whether appointing a receiver is an available mechanism to make effective an order requiring out-of-state acts related to the property.

## Decision

- The court granted a mandatory injunction compelling Rosseter to comply with the 1918 agreement and transfer possession for Madden’s 1921–1922 contractual use.
- The court appointed a receiver authorized to obtain possession of the stallion in California and arrange shipment to the place of Madden’s use under the agreement.
- The court treated Rosseter’s conditional demand for a new agreement as a refusal to perform the existing contract, warranting equitable intervention.

## Legal Principles

- Equity acts in personam: a court may order a defendant subject to its personal jurisdiction to perform affirmative acts even when performance must occur outside the forum state.
- Territorial limits on control over property do not bar orders directed at the person concerning that property, so long as the decree operates on the defendant rather than directly upon the out-of-state res.
- Mandatory injunctions and related equitable devices may be used to enforce specific performance-like relief for unique personal property when legal damages are inadequate, particularly where the value of performance depends on timing (e.g., a breeding season).
- A receiver may be appointed to carry out and secure compliance with equitable orders requiring affirmative action relating to property located beyond the forum’s borders.

## Conclusion

The court enforced a co-ownership contract for a unique stallion by ordering affirmative, out-of-state performance: it issued a mandatory injunction against the defendant and appointed a receiver to secure the horse in another state, confirming that equitable decrees may compel extraterritorial acts when directed to a party within the court’s personal jurisdiction.


Madden v. Rosseter, 114 Misc. 416 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1921)