Consumers' Oil Co. v. Nunnemaker
Decision Date | 21 November 1895 |
Docket Number | 17,350 |
Citation | 41 N.E. 1048,142 Ind. 560 |
Parties | Consumers' Oil Company v. Nunnemaker |
Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Lake Circuit Court.
Judgment affirmed.
Olds & Griffin, for appellant.
--Appellant instituted this action to enjoin appellee from pursuing the business of selling oil and gasoline, and delivering the same to consumers, in the city of Hammond, Indiana. The action was commenced upon a written contract made and entered into by and between appellee and one H. T. Benham (who is described as "trustee and manager,") on the 3d day of February, 1893. The complaint avers
It is further alleged that before the violation of the contract in question, Benham sold, assigned and transferred all of his right, title, and interest in and to the property so purchased to plaintiff, a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of New Jersey, and also assigned and transferred the written contract and all right, title, interest and good will of said business in the territory aforesaid, to plaintiff. It further avers that the defendant has entered into and is pursuing his said business of selling and delivering oil to the consumers of said city of Hammond, in violation of his said contract and is threatening to so continue in violation of the rights of plaintiff, inasmuch as he comes in competition with plaintiff, who is engaged in the same business. Appellee's insolvency is also alleged, and a copy of the contract is filed with the complaint. An injunction is prayed to restrain the appellee from further pursuing his business in the city of Hammond.
A demurrer for insufficiency of facts was sustained to this complaint and this ruling of the court is assigned as error.
We are not favored with a brief upon appellee's part, but infer from statements in the brief of the learned counsel for appellant that the contract in controversy was assailed by the appellee upon the ground that it sought to prohibit him from selling and delivering oil at any place in the State of Indiana outside of the city of Indianapolis, and constituted an unreasonable restraint upon trade, and was, therefore, invalid and not enforcible in any respect.
Appellant contends that notwithstanding the territory is the entire State of Indiana, with the exception mentioned, in which appellee is restricted from pursuing his business as an oil merchant, the restraint is a reasonable limitation, and that the complaint based upon the contract in question set forth a sufficient cause of action for the relief thereby sought. It is settled that a contract in general restraint of trade is invalid, but one restraining a party from trading within reasonable limits so as not to be injurious to the interest of the public, is valid and may be enforced by an injunction, upon a proper showing of facts. Beard v. Dennis, 6 Ind. 200; Duffy v. Shockey, 11 Ind. 70; Spicer v. Hoop, 51 Ind. 365; Baker v. Pottmeyer, 75 Ind. 451; Beatty v. Coble, 142 Ind. 329, 41 N.E. 590.
The settled rule as enunciated by the American and English decisions of the highest courts seems to be that where, in the particular case before the court, the restraint in controversy, as to territory, appears to be broader or larger than is necessary to the protection of the party seeking to enforce the restrictive contract, it is of no benefit to either party, but in that event becomes oppressive upon the party against whom the enforcement is sought, and being oppressive the law regards the restriction as unreasonable and injurious to the interests of the public.
It is not the interests of the parties alone, which in the eye of the law are to be considered the true test, but in each particular case, under the facts, the judicial inquiry is Will it be inimical to the public interest? If so, then, and in that event, the agreement must he held as hostile to public policy, and therefore void. Public policy is that principle of law which holds that no subject or citizen can lawfully do that which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against the public good. This principle owes its existence to the very sources from which...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
The State ex inf. Hadley v. Standard Oil Co.
... ... Mo. 68] In 1901 his company was running eight or nine wagons ... His trade in the city is with retail dealers, manufacturers ... and consumers of every description except to families. His ... illuminating oil and gasoline are delivered by tank wagons ... The lubricating oils are sold in ... ...