Canfield v. Spear
| Decision Date | 26 September 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 41813,41813 |
| Citation | 254 N.E.2d 433,44 Ill.2d 49 |
| Parties | Bruce H. CANFIELD et al., Appellants, v. Victor I. SPEAR, Appellee. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Raphael E. Yalden, Rockford, for appellants.
Barry L. Kroll, Chicago, for appellee.
This case involves the validity of a restriction by contract upon the right to practice medicine. A group of doctors associated in a Rockford clinic brought suit in the circuit court of Winnebago County to enjoin a former associate, Victor I. Spear, from practicing medicine in Rockford, or within a 25-mile radius thereof, in violation of his agreement. The circuit court issued an injunction restraining him from so practicing for a period of 3 years, as called for by the contract. The appellate court reversed, however, holding the provision unenforceable. (99 Ill.App.2d 107, 241 N.E.2d 105.) This court granted leave to appeal.
The record shows that defendant came with the clinic in May, 1965, under a one-year contract. At the end of that year the agreement in question was entered into providing for a 15-year association, with a minimum guaranty of $18,000 per year for the first two years. Under the terms of the contract defendant could terminate by giving one year's notice of intention to do so, but in the event of withdrawal agreed he 'will not re-engage in the practice of medicine within three (3) years after the termination of the association with the partnership within the City of Rockford or within a radius of twenty-five (25) miles thereof.' In January, 1967, defendant gave notice of resignation and requested that the effective date be the following July 1 instead of the one year later. The plaintiffs consented to this, but advised defendant that they would expect him to observe the 3-year restriction on practicing in the Rockford area. Nevertheless shortly after July 1 the defendant, in disregard of the agreement, opened a new office in Rockford, sending out announcements of the fact.
It is not denied that this conduct was in direct violation of the contract. It is sought to be excused, however, on the ground that the restrictive clause is void. To support this position defendant makes several arguments. He claims that since his specialty is dermatology the plaintiffs (who have apparently not yet obtained another dermatologist) have no legally protectible interest, that if he does not practice in the Rockford area the public welfare will be injured, that the area has an unfavorable 'dermatologist-patient ratio', that the plaintiffs have failed to prove the damage caused to their clinic by defendant's practice, and that compelling him to live up to his agreement would be a hardship.
There is no merit in defendant's position. It is true that contracts in general restraint of trade are ordinarily held to be void. (See Hursen v. Gavin, 162 Ill. 377, 44 N.E. 735.) But in cases such as the present one, where the limitation as to time and territory is not unreasonable, the agreement is valid and enforceable, and relief by injunction is customary and proper. Bauer v. Sawyer, 8 Ill.2d 351, 134 N.E.2d 329; Storer v. Brock, 351 Ill. 643, 184 N.E. 868; Ryan v. Hamilton, 205 Ill. 191, 68 N.E. 781.
In the Bauer case several doctors were associated in a medical clinic in the city of Kankakee. The agreement provided that in case a doctor withdrew or terminated his association he would not engage in the practice of medicine within a radius of 25 miles of Kankakee for a period of 5 years. In holding that an injunction should be granted this court said 8 Ill.2d at 355, 134 N.E.2d at 331.
In the Storer case a restriction on the practice of medicine was upheld which covered the entire city of Chicago and was unlimited as to time. In holding the restraint to be reasonably limited the court pointed out, Inter alia, that 'by the contract he is not restrained from practicing his profession at any place in this State outside of the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Weber v. Tillman
...through the employment, or had little practical experience before becoming associated with the employer. See Canfield v. Spear, 44 Ill.2d 49, 51, 254 N.E.2d 433 (1969); Retina Services, 182 Ill.App.3d at 858, 131 Ill.Dec. 276, 538 N.E.2d 651; Fields Foundation, 103 Wis.2d at 472-73, 309 N.W......
-
Health Professionals, Ltd. v. Johnson, 3-02-0925.
...190, 587 N.E.2d 72 (1992). Thus, while contracts in general restraint of trade are ordinarily held to be void (Canfield v. Spear, 44 Ill.2d 49, 254 N.E.2d 433 (1969)), restrictive covenants contained in employment contracts are valid and enforceable (Cockerill v. Wilson, 51 Ill.2d 179, 281 ......
-
Reliable Fire Equip. Co. v. Arredondo
...protection. House of Vision, 37 Ill.2d at 37–38, 225 N.E.2d 21. After House of Vision, the supreme court decided Canfield v. Spear, 44 Ill.2d 49, 254 N.E.2d 433 (1969), in which the court upheld the geographic limitation in a restrictive covenant but did not address the appellant's further ......
-
Office Mates 5, North Shore, Inc. v. Hazen
...in plaintiff's relationship with its clients. The near-permanency test has as its origin the supreme court cases of Canfield v. Spear (1969), 44 Ill.2d 49, 254 N.E.2d 433, and Cockerill v. Wilson (1972), 51 Ill.2d 179, 281 N.E.2d 648. In Canfield, defendants were a group of medical doctors ......