Arond v. Grossman
| Citation | 75 So.2d 593 |
| Parties | Maurice AROND, Appellant, v. Bernard GROSSMAN, Jeannette Miller, Irving Miller, and Dade Sanitary ProductsCo., a Florida corporation, Appellee. |
| Decision Date | 02 November 1954 |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Ader & Young, Miami Beach, for appellant.
Sibley & Davis, Miami Beach, for appellee.
Bernard Grossman, et al., and Dade Sanitary Products Co., a Florida corporation, filed a bill for injunction against Maurice Arond to restrain him from engaging in the occupation of sanitary supply salesman. A temporary injunction was awarded plaintiffs which was on final hearing made permanent. This appeal is from the final decree.
The only point for determination is whether or not the circumstances warranted the permanent injunction against the defendant.
The plaintiff corporation was engaged in the business of dispensing sanitary supplies consisting of chemicals and polishing compounds including implements to apply them. Appellant was a stockholder, director and officer of the plaintiff corporation and drew a salary from it as salesman. He become dissatisfied with the way the affairs of the corporation were conducted, quit working for it, attempted to resign as an officer and director, and accepted employment as salesman from a competitor. He commenced soliciting the customers of his former employer, the plaintiffs, who brought this suit for injunction and other relief, relying on a stockholders' agreement to devote all their working time to the corporation and the former relations existing between the parties, account of which it is contended that appellant was estopped to engaged in a competitive business.
The effect of the temporary injunction as made permanent by the final decree was to restrain appellant permanently (1) from engaging in a business in competition with that of appellee, (2) from accepting employment from a competitor of appellee, (3) from soliciting customers of appellee, (4) from engaging in any similar activity the effect of which would injure appellee.
There was evidence to sustain the injunction but the vice of it was in its permanence. The chancellor apparently reasoned that appellant was still a stockholder, officer and director of the plaintiff and could not engage in similar employment. It may be that the appellant is still technically a stockholder (the stock having been pledged to one of the appellees) but he is not in reality an officer or director. Appellee is a family corporation which seldom holds formal meetings. Election of officers and the transaction of other business of the corporation is usually conducted by the family informally. Appellant is not a member of the family, so for all practical purposes he is now barred from participating in its corporate affairs.
In view of this situation we think there should have been a limitation...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hapney v. Central Garage, Inc.
...follow a calling by which he may make his livelihood."). These basic concepts are embraced in the law of our state. See Arnold v. Grossman, 75 So.2d 593 (Fla.1954); Love v. Miami Laundry Co., 118 Fla. 137, 160 So. 32 In 1953 the legislature enacted section 542.12, Florida Statutes (1953) (r......
-
Flammer v. Patton
...Before enactment of Fla.Stat. § 542.12, F.S.A. in 1953, this Court consistently treated non-competition provisions harshly. Arond v. Grossman, 75 So.2d 593 (Fla.1954); Love v. Miami Laundry Co., 118 Fla. 137, 160 So. 32 (1934), aff'd on rehearing, 1935; Simms v. Burnett, 55 Fla. 702, 46 So.......
-
Rinker Materials Corp. of West Palm Beach v. Holloway Materials Corp., 4644
...his trade would result either in his violation of the law or the deprivation of his right to earn a livelihood. '* * * 'In Arond v. Grossman, Fla., 75 So.2d 593, 595, we said that contracts 'not to compete or work for a competitor' were unenforceable in the absence of 'some special equity.'......
-
Standard Newspapers, Inc. v. Woods
...L.Ed. 502, or to interfere with a person's right to make a living, Love v. Miami Laundry Co., 118 Fla. 137, 160 So. 32. In Arond v. Grossman, Fla., 75 So.2d 593, 595, we said that contracts 'not to compete or work for a competitor' were unenforceable in the absence of 'some special equity.'......