GIRASULO v. CONSOL. MOTOR

For facts, see p. 245, infra. The defendants in their cross complaints seek an injunction restraining the plaintiffs from further prosecuting their actions which sounded in tort. After the commencement of the trial on the issues, the parties entered into an agreement of compromise which the plaintiffs have since repudiated and refuse to comply with. Held: The Superior Court has sufficient equity power to enforce such an agreement. To deny the relief prayed for in the cross complaints would lead to great delay and expense as well as create an intolerable situation. Injunction granted.

MUNGER, J.

It is clear that there was a definite agreement fully understood by all of the parties to settle and dispose of these cases. The amount to be paid was agreed upon. There was an extended period of negotiation and it must be found as a fact that the agreement on all sides was thoroughly understood. The plaintiffs have now repudiated this agreement and the question arises whether the Court has any power to enforce it. As to that I have no other disposition than to follow Judge Inglis who at a previous stage of the proceedings had this matter under consideration.

I think also that we must immediately ask ourselves what the effect would be upon the business of the courts if such conduct as this upon the part of the plaintiffs could be upheld. At the end of a trial lasting a month the plaintiff in any case might make a definite agreement to settle and the case be thereupon adjourned, pending the preparation of the releases the agreement might be repudiated and there would follow a month of lost motion and expense. If the Court did not enforce the agreement the parties would then go to trial again. How many times could this procedure be tolerated? I think the Court in its equity powers has authority to enforce a definite agreement such as was made in the present case and certainly anything else would lead to results which might be intolerable.