Bolen Intern., Inc. v. Medow
Decision Date | 11 October 1966 |
Docket Number | No. 66--89,66--89 |
Citation | 191 So.2d 51 |
Parties | BOLEN INTERNATIONAL, INC., an Illinois corporation, (formerly known as Terox Corporation of America), Appellant, v. Robert S. MEDOW, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Hoffman, Kemper & Johnson, Miami, Ely R. Katz and Michael H. Salmon, Miami Beach, for appellant.
Irwin S. Gars, Miami, for appellee.
Before PEARSON, CARROLL and BARKDULL, JJ.
The final decree appealed states that it is entered upon motion for judgment on the pleadings. See Rule 1.11(c), Fla.R.Civ.P., 30 F.S.A. One of the determinative points is the propriety of such a decree upon the posture of the case at the time of its entry. The decree is as follows:
'THIS CAUSE having come on to be heard before me, upon the Defendant, ROBERT S. MEDOW'S Motion for Judgment upon the Pleadings; and this Court having examined the Complaint, the Non-Competition Agreement referred to therein, and the Answer and Affirmative Defense of the Defendant, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is, thereupon:
'ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED, as follows:
'1. That the Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the pleadings be, and the same is hereby, granted. For that this Court does hereby rule that Puerto Rico is not 'within the area of the United States of America and the Dominion of Canada', as is set forth in the Non-Competition Agreement, and that, therefore, there are no restrictions whatsoever upon any activity of the Defendant in Puerto Rico.
The appellant sought a permanent injunction prohibiting the defendant from violating a non-competition agreement. The complaint alleged: The appellant was formerly known as Terox Corporation of America and has changed its name to Bolen International, Inc. The defendant had been a shareholder, director and an officer of Terox; but he sold said interest, terminated his relationship with Terox, and entered into a non-competition agreement. The defendant agreed that he would not compete with the plaintiff 'within the area of the United States of America and the Dominion of Canada.' The defendant has formed a new corporation known as Cororoc, with headquarters in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, for the manufacture of building material products similar to, or the same as, those described in the non-competition agreement.
In paragraph 7, the complaint states:
The defendant's answer denied this allegation.
The plaintiff, appellant, urges three reasons for holding that the entry of the decree on the pleadings was improper. They are: (1) Puerto Rico, within the purview of the non-competition agreement, is 'within the area of the United States of America.'; (2) it is error to enter a decree upon the pleadings when only a portion of the case is disposed of by said...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Martinez v. Fraxedas
...Practice and Procedure § 10-9, at 186 (1995 ed.); Ropiza v. Reyes, 583 So.2d 400, 401 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Bolen International, Inc., v. Medow, 191 So.2d 51, 53 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966), cert. denied, 200 So.2d 808 (Fla.1967); Morris v. Truax, 152 So.2d 515, 519 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963).6 Although Marti......
-
Chick-Fil-a, Inc. v. Cft Development, LLC
...required to wait for the actual violation of the Mt. Dora Covenant before seeking the aid of the courts. See Bolen Intern., Inc. v. Medow, 191 So.2d 51, 53 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966). 72. This Court concludes, as a matter of fact and law, that Chick-fil-A is entitled to and is hereby awarded an inj......
-
Dunkin v. Barkus & Kronstadt, D.O.'s P.A., 88-1975
...in restraint of trade, any such agreement must be construed strictly against the purported restraint. See Bolen Int'l, Inc. v. Medow, 191 So.2d 51 (Fla.3d DCA 1966), cert. denied, 200 So.2d 808 (Fla.1967); Storz Broadcasting Co. v. Courtney, 178 So.2d 40 (Fla.3d DCA 1965), cert. denied, 188......
-
Smartmatic Int'l Corp. v. Dominion Voting Sys. Int'l Corp.
...Id. at 40. 51. 150 F.3d 298 (3d Cir. 1998). 52. Id. at 301. 53. In another case relied on by Plaintiffs, Bolen International, Inc. v. Medow, 191 So. 2d 51 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1966), the Florida court interpreted the term "the area of the United States" in a noncompetition agreement. That c......