As in specific performance, injunction will be given only if the contract is mutually binding in obligation upon both parties.1 Thus if one party has the option under the contract to terminate it, he cannot .have injunction against the adversary party who has no such option.2 Even on this point, however, the authorities are not unanimous. Thus the right to end a contract for operating a telegraph wire at the end of any year3 or the right to terminate a contract of employment of a baseball player on ten days' notice4 have each been held not to prevent injunction against breach by the party to whom the option to terminate is not reserved. In some courts mutuality of remedy as well as of obligation has been insisted on as a requisite to relief by injunction. Thus a contract was made by the owner of a theatre to lease it to the owner and manager of a theatrical troupe. Subsequently the owner of the theatre repudiated the contract and leased to a rival troupe. On suit for injunction it was held that since specific performance could not have been had against the troupe, injunction could not be given against the owner of the theatre.5 This is, of course, contrary to the theory underlying injunction for breach of employment contracts, since injunction cannot be given against the employer.6

1 Lancaster v. Roberts. Hi I11. 213; 33 N. E. 27.

2 Marble Co. v. Ripley, 10 Wall. (U. S.) 339; Rust v. Conrad, 47 Micb. 449; 41 Am. Rep. 720; 11 N. W. 265.

3 Franklin Telegraph Co. v. Harrison, 145 U. S. 459.

4 Philadelphia Ball Club v. La-joie, 202 Pa St. 210; 90 Am. St. Rep. 627; 58 L. R. A. 227; 51 Atl. 973.

5 Welty v. Jacobs, 171 I11. 624; 40 L. R. A. 98; 49 N. E. 723.

6 Stewart v. Pierce, 116 la. 733; 89 N. W. 234.