Cottington v. Swan
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin |
| Writing for the Court | SIEBECKER |
| Citation | 107 N.W. 336,128 Wis. 321 |
| Parties | COTTINGTON v. SWAN. |
| Decision Date | 08 May 1906 |
128 Wis. 321
107 N.W. 336
COTTINGTON
v.
SWAN.
Supreme Court of Wisconsin.
May 8, 1906.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Chippewa County; A. J. Vinje, Judge.
Action by Robert Cottington against L. E. Swan. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed.
The plaintiff alleges that on May 2, 1904, he and one C. B. Ackley purchased defendant's livery business, good will, and property, consisting of the usual equipment for conducting such a business, located in the village of Bloomer in this state; that they paid for such business, property, and good will the sum of $800; and that defendant duly transferred it to them upon payment of the specified consideration. The defendant, as a condition of such sale and transfer, covenanted and agreed as follows: “And I do further covenant and agree to and with the parties of the second part and their heirs, executors, and administrators that I will not engage in the livery business, either directly or indirectly, or be or become in any manner employed or connected with such buisness in the village of Bloomer in the county of Chippewa and state of Wisconsin so long as the said parties of the second part or either of them or their heirs, executors or administrators shall engage in such livery business within said village.” The plaintiff has acquired from C. B. Ackley all rights, interest, and causes of action arising out of such contract, and since such transfer has been and is now engaged in conducting the livery business so purchased from defendant. The complaint further alleges: “That the said defendant in violation of said agreement and shortly after the making of the same and prior to the time of the commencement of this action returned to and commenced conducting the livery business at said village of Bloomer and ______ has been engaged and is still engaged and continues in the business of letting horses and rigs for hire in said village.” The complaint demands as relief that defendant be restrained from conducting a livery business in violation of his contract and for the recovery of $1,000 damages, claimed to have been sustained before the commencement of this action on account of defendant's violation of the contract. The defendant demurred to the complaint on the ground that it appears upon the face of the complaint that the same does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The court made an order sustaining the demurrer and plaintiff duly filed an exception. This is an appeal from such order.
[107 N.W. 336]
Henry Lebeis, Jr. (W. H. Stafford, of counsel), for appellant.
W. M. Bowe, for respondent.
SIEBECKER, J. (after stating the facts).
The only ground of objection urged to the complaint is that the contract upon which recovery is claimed by the plaintiff is in restraint of trade and the courts...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pulp Wood Co. v. Green Bay Paper & Fiber Co.
...Oil and Tobacco Cases, as will be seen from an examination of the following cases decided since the law was enacted: Cottington v. Swan, 128 Wis. 321, 107 N. W. 336;My Laundry Co. v. Schmeling, 129 Wis. 597, 109 N. W. 540;Kradwell v. Thiesen, 131 Wis. 97, 111 N. W. 233;Burton v. Douglass, 1......
-
Solowicz v. FORWARD GENEVA NAT., LLC, 2008AP10.
...is imposed, reasonable as between them and not specially injurious to the public." Id. at 570, 183 N.W. 984 (quoting Cottington v. Swan, 128 Wis. 321, 323, 107 N.W. 336 (1906) and cases there cited). Solowicz is correct in pointing out that the Huntley court determined whether the restricti......
-
Love v. Miami Laundry Co.
...above referred to, no question as to the validity of the contract would arise under the decisions of our own state. Cottington v. Swan, 128 Wis. 321, 107 N.W. 336; My Laundry Co. v. Schmeling, 129 Wis. 597, and cases cited on page 606, 109 N.W. 540. It meets all the requirements of the rule......
-
Fullerton Lumber Co. v. Torborg
...v. Thiesen, 1907, 131 Wis. 97, 111 N.W. 233; My Laundry Co. v. Schmeling, 1906, 129 Wis. 597, 109 N.W. 540, and Cottington v. Swan, 1906, 128 Wis. 321, 107 N.W. 336, [270 Wis. 139] where this court has upheld restrictive covenants, are not very helpful in this instance because they grow out......
-
Pulp Wood Co. v. Green Bay Paper & Fiber Co.
...Oil and Tobacco Cases, as will be seen from an examination of the following cases decided since the law was enacted: Cottington v. Swan, 128 Wis. 321, 107 N. W. 336;My Laundry Co. v. Schmeling, 129 Wis. 597, 109 N. W. 540;Kradwell v. Thiesen, 131 Wis. 97, 111 N. W. 233;Burton v. Douglass, 1......
-
Solowicz v. FORWARD GENEVA NAT., LLC, No. 2008AP10.
...is imposed, reasonable as between them and not specially injurious to the public." Id. at 570, 183 N.W. 984 (quoting Cottington v. Swan, 128 Wis. 321, 323, 107 N.W. 336 (1906) and cases there cited). Solowicz is correct in pointing out that the Huntley court determined whether the restricti......
-
Love v. Miami Laundry Co.
...above referred to, no question as to the validity of the contract would arise under the decisions of our own state. Cottington v. Swan, 128 Wis. 321, 107 N.W. 336; My Laundry Co. v. Schmeling, 129 Wis. 597, and cases cited on page 606, 109 N.W. 540. It meets all the requirements of the rule......
-
Fullerton Lumber Co. v. Torborg
...v. Thiesen, 1907, 131 Wis. 97, 111 N.W. 233; My Laundry Co. v. Schmeling, 1906, 129 Wis. 597, 109 N.W. 540, and Cottington v. Swan, 1906, 128 Wis. 321, 107 N.W. 336, [270 Wis. 139] where this court has upheld restrictive covenants, are not very helpful in this instance because they grow out......