Bennett v. Georgia Indus. Catering Co.
| Decision Date | 05 May 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 23418,23418 |
| Citation | 222 Ga. 127,149 S.E.2d 81 |
| Parties | Fred BENNETT, Jr. v. GEORGIA INDUSTRIAL CATERING COMPANY. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. A restrictive covenant in an employment contract prohibiting the employee from soliciting or receiving the continued patronage from employer's customers on the lunch route or any new customers thereon whose patronage was developed by the employee for a period of one year from termination of his employment is reasonable as to time and territory, and therefore valid and enforceable.
2. The contract is not indefinite and vague with respect to the nature, kind and character of activity the employee is prohibited from engaging in, as the contract clearly provides that the employee is not to serve any customers on the lunch route at the time he began serving it or any new customers developed by the employee who comprise a part of the lunch route at the termination of the contract.
Kilpatrick, Cody, Rogers, McClatchey & Regenstein, Harold E. Abrams, G. Kimbrough Taylor, Jr., Atlanta, for appellant.
Stone & Stone, Noah J. Stone, Hugh W. Stone, Atlanta, for appellee.
This appeal is from a judgment denying a motion by defendant, Fred Bennett, Jr., to vacate a temporary restraining order and his motion to dismiss the petition, and a judgment overruling his general demurrer to a petition for injunctive relief filed by the Georgia Industrial Catering Company, appellee, against Bennett to enjoin him, under a restrictive covenant in an employment contract between the parties, from serving any of the customers on a retail lunch route, whose patronage had been developed by petitioner as well as any customers on the route obtained by Bennett as petitioner's employee.
1. This court has held many times that 'a restrictive covenant in a contract of employment whereby a person agrees not to engage in an occupational activity of a particular kind which is reasonably limited as to time and territory is valid and enforceable so long as it is not unreasonable in other respects.' Williams v. Rio Grande Fence Co., 221 Ga. 633, 634(1), 146 S.E.2d 630, 631; Dixie Bearings, Inc. v. Walker, 219 Ga. 353, 133 S.E.2d 338; Burdine v. Brooks, 206 Ga. 12, 55 S.E.2d 605; Artistic Ornamental Iron Co. v. Wilkes, 213 Ga. 654, 100 S.E.2d 731; Stein Steel & Supply Co. v. Tucker, 219 Ga. 844, 136 S.E.2d 355; WAKE Broadcasters, Inc. v. Crawford, 215 Ga. 862, 114 S.E.2d 26. The restraint must be 'reasonably necessary to protect the interest of the party in whose favor it is imposed * * *.' Rakestraw v. Lanier, 104 Ga. 188, 194, 30 S.E. 735, 738; Stein Steel & Supply Co. v. Tucker, supra. The territorial limitation in the present covenant is reasonable, being 'Fulton County,' Georgia in which petitioner alleges it has developed a valuable business through the solicitation and development of customers. Turner v. Robinson, 214 Ga. 729, 107 S.E.2d 648; Thomas v. Coastal Industrial Services, Inc., 214 Ga. 832, 108 S.E.2d 328; Bennett v. Kimsey, 218 Ga. 470, 128 S.E.2d 506.
The limitation as to time is stated in the contract as being '* * * for a period of not less than one year from date of termination * * *' The trial court properly construed this to mean for one year, as the provision required that it be for one year, but did not provide that it should be for more than one year. Therefore, it was for one year. A limitation of one year is well within the bounds of reasonableness. Brittain v. Reid, 220 Ga. 794, 141 S.E.2d 903; Insurance Center v. Hamilton, 218 Ga. 597, 129 S.E.2d 801; Thomas v. Coastal Industrial Services, Inc., supra.
2. Appellant, Bennett, contends that, aside from the time and territorial limitations, the contract is 'otherwise unreasonable' in that it is indefinite and vague with respect to the nature, kind, and character of the activity that the employee is prohibited from engaging in, relying upon the decisions in Dixie Bearings, Inc. v. Walker, supra; Stein Steel & Supply Co. v. Tucker, supra; and Friedman v. Friedman, 209 Ga....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Water Services, Inc. v. Tesco Chemicals, Inc.
...as to time and territory and definite as to the nature, kind, and character of the activities prohibited. Bennett v. Georgia Indus. Catering Co., 1966, 222 Ga. 127, 149 S.E.2d 81; Shirk v. Loftis Bros., 1918, 148 Ga. 500, 97 S.E. 66; Rakestraw v. Lanier, 1898, 104 Ga. 188, 30 S.E. 735. Geor......
-
Mouldings, Inc. v. Potter
...as to time and territory and definite as to the nature, kind and character of the activities prohibited. Bennett v. Georgia Industrial Catering Company, 1966, 222 Ga. 127, 149 S.E.2d 81; Shirk v. Loftis Brothers, 1918, 148 Ga. 500, 97 S.E. 66; Rakestraw v. Lanier, 1898, 104 Ga. 188, 30 S.E.......
-
Waldeck v. Curtis 1000, Inc.
...376, 377(1), 297 S.E.2d 473 (1982); Orkin Exterminating Co. v. Walker, 251 Ga. 536, 539(2)(b), 307 S.E.2d 914 (1983). 9. 222 Ga. 127, 129-130, 149 S.E.2d 81 (1966). 10. 226 Ga. 593, 596-597, 176 S.E.2d 71 (1970). 11. 244 Ga. 169, 259 S.E.2d 433 (1979). 12. Bennett, supra. 13. Coffee System ......
-
Landmark Financial Services, Inc. v. Tarpley
...231 Ga. 757, 204 S.E.2d 171 (1974); Thomas v. Orkin Termite Co., Inc., 222 Ga. 207, 149 S.E.2d 85 (1966); Bennett v. Georgia Industrial Catering Co., 222 Ga. 127, 149 S.E.2d 81 (1966); Williams v. Rio Grande Fence Co., 221 Ga. 633, 146 S.E.2d 630 (1966). The time and territorial limitations......