Crossfield v. Lokey

• Court: Alabama Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: ANDERSON, C.J.
• Citation: Crossfield v. Lokey, 103 So. 649, 212 Ala. 560 (Ala. 1925)
• Decision Date: 09 April 1925
• Docket Number: 7 Div. 560
• Parties: CROSSFIELD v. LOKEY.

103 So. 649

212 Ala. 560

CROSSFIELD v. LOKEY.

7 Div. 560

Supreme Court of Alabama

April 9, 1925

Appeal from Circuit Court, Etowah County; Woodson J. Martin, Judge.

Bill in equity by C.K. Crossfield against V.C. Lokey for injunction to restrain respondent from engaging in business in competition with complainant, in violation of a contract of sale between the parties. From a decree dismissing the bill complainant appeals. Reversed, rendered, and remanded.

Goodhue & Lusk, of Gadsden, for appellant.

Dortch Allen & Dortch, of Gadsden, for appellee.

ANDERSON C.J.

It is undoubtedly the law in this country and in England, that contracts in general restraint of trade are void as against public policy; but contracts, like the one here involved where one sells his business and good will to another and covenants not to engage in a similar business for himself or another in a certain territory and for a specified time, have been repeatedly upheld by the courts and have been enforced by the restraining effect of injunctive process. Harris v. Theus, 149 Ala. 133, 43 So. 131, 123 Am.St.Rep. 17, 10 L.R.A. (N.S.) 204; Saxon v. Parson, 206 Ala. 491, 90 So. 904; Smith v. Webb, 176 Ala. 596, 58 So. 913, 40 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1191. Indeed, the soundness of this proposition is not questioned by the appellee, who justifies the action of the trial court in denying the complainant relief upon the theory that the contract in question does not cover the ordinary employment or work as engaged in by this respondent; that the contract only prohibits him from owning or operating a competing business or from engaging in such business for another as manager or superintendent as distinguished from an ordinary clerk, servant, or laborer. The contract says:

"And the first parties, in consideration of said payment and said promise, do further covenant with said second party that they will refrain from engaging in the manufacture or sale of ice cream, sherbets and ice cream products now handled by said Lokey Ice Cream Company for a period of five years from January 1, 1921, either directly or indirectly, and either in business for themselves or working for other persons, firms or corporations, in the county of Etowah, state of Alabama."

True the succeeding sentence, expressive of the intent of the parties, uses the word "engaging" in business for themselves or another and does not use the words "work for" as above used; but we do...