Busk v. F. Wolf & Co.
Decision Date | 12 January 1915 |
Docket Number | 123. |
Parties | BUSK v. F. WOLF & CO. |
Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
There was no error in refusing to postpone the trial of the case.
The following contract was the basis of an action to enjoin the defendant from engaging in business in violation of its terms.
Held, that the contract was not void as being in restraint of trade, or as being unreasonable. McAuliffe v. Vaughan, 135 Ga. 853, 70 S.E. 322, 33 L.R.A. (N. S.) 255, Ann.Cas. 1912A, 290; Floding v. Floding, 137 Ga. 531, 73 S.E. 729.
(a) The case is not controlled by the act of 1896 (Laws Ga. 1896, p. 68), if that act (which is not embodied in the Civil Code of 1910) is valid and in force.
The provision that, if the vendor should operate another business of the character above mentioned, he should pay the profits thereof to the vendee, would not prevent an injunction; there being evidence to show that the vendor was not financially responsible in damages, and that he declined to give any account of the profits, and that it was impracticable to show the exact amount of loss that would be sustained by the continuance in business of the vendor.
While the evidence was conflicting,...
To continue reading
Request your trial