American Bldg. Maintenance Co. of Oakland v. Fogelman, 64-187
| Decision Date | 06 October 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 64-187,64-187 |
| Citation | 167 So.2d 791 |
| Parties | The AMERICAN BUILDING MAINTENANCE CO. OF OAKLAND, Appellant, v. Sam FOGELMAN, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Broad & Cassel and Lewis Horwitz, Miami Beach, for appellant.
Shevin, Goodman & Holtzman, Miami, for appellee.
Before BARKDULL, C. J., and CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.
Plaintiff appeals from the chancellor's order which enjoins the defendant, a former employee, from engaging in a business competitive with the plaintiff for a period of one year.
Plaintiff had employed defendant for nine years as the district manager of its building maintenance business in Dade County. Five months prior to his discharge, defendant was required to sign a contract whereby he agreed not to engage in a business competitive to his employer's for a three year period, upon termination of his employment.
Subsequent to the defendant's discharge, he engaged in a competitive business, as a means of livelihood, and the plaintiff instituted this litigation seeking an injunction to enforce the non-competitive portion of the contract. The chancellor, after hearing the evidence, entered a decree which prohibited the defendant from engaging in the building maintenance business for a period of three years. Thereafter, the chancellor granted the defendant's petition for rehearing and modified the decree to provide for a one year period of non-competition instead of three. It is from this modification that the plaintiff appeals.
Appellant urges that the chancellor abused his discretion in modifying the decree so that it did not conform to the contract provision. We can not agree.
The applicable law was clearly enunciated by Chief Judge Sturgis in Atlas Travel Service v. Morelly, Fla.App.,App.1957, 98 So.2d 816, where he stated:
[Emphasis supplied.] 98 So.2d at 818 .
We have emphasized the word 'otherwise' in the above cited passage because we feel that it is determinative of the present...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sun Elastic Corp. v. O.B. Industries
...Broadcasting Co. v. Courtney, 178 So.2d 40 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965), cert. denied, 188 So.2d 315 (Fla.1966); American Bldg. Maintenance Co. v. Fogelman, 167 So.2d 791 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964); Atlas Travel Serv., Inc. v. Morelly, 98 So.2d 816 (Fla. 1st DCA For this reason, the order under review is rev......
-
Akey v. Murphy
...on the employee.' And in McQuown v. Lakeland Window Cleaning Co., Fla.App.1962, 136 So.2d 370, and American Building Maintenance Co. of Oakland v. Fogelman, Fla.App.1964, 167 So.2d 791, two of our district courts of appeal declined to overturn a chancellor's exercise of his discretion in re......
-
Twenty Four Collection, Inc. v. Keller, 80-181
...to determine, as the statute provides, the reasonableness of its time and area limitations. E. g., American Building Maintenance Co. of Oakland v. Fogelman, 167 So.2d 791 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964). As the supreme court made clear in the Capelouto case, supra, 183 So.2d at Absent any overriding pub......
-
Dorminy v. Frank B. Hall & Co., Inc.
...So.2d 336 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Availability, Inc. v. Riley, 336 So.2d 668 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); American Building Maintenance Company of Oakland v. Fogelman, 167 So.2d 791 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1964).6 See Auto Club Affiliates, Inc. v. Donahey, 281 So.2d 239 (Fla. 2d DCA ...