Ditus v. Beahm, 16467
Decision Date | 21 May 1951 |
Docket Number | No. 16467,16467 |
Parties | DITUS et al. v. BEAHM. |
Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
F. W. Harding, Onalee Brown, Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Thornton H. Thomas, Jr., Burlington, for defendant in error.
Prior to November 20, 1947, the parties to this action were partners in a business known as Burlington Livestock Sales Company, operating at Burlington, Colorado. On that date plaintiffs in error, who were plaintiffs below, entered into a written contract for the purchase of defendant's interest in said business for a valuable consideration. The contract contained a provision that defendant would not 'enter into any livestock pavilion business, either directly or indirectly, within a radius of fifty miles of Burlington, Colorado, within a period of fifty years from date.'
Defendant allegedly, in violation of the above covenant, has entered into the livestock pavilion business at Stratton, Colorado, which is within a radius of fifty miles of Burlington. Thereupon plaintiffs brought this action for an injunction and damages for breach of the contract, and shortly thereafter petitioned the court for a temporary injunction during the pendency of the action, alleging in the petition that unless restrained, defendant would continue to violate the terms of the contract to plaintiffs' injury. The trial court denied the temporary injunction stating inter alia: 'There has been no showing of any real or actual injury.'
Defendant in the present case received a large sum of money in consideration of which he agreed not to conduct a livestock sales pavilion business within a prescribed territory. He willfully violated said contract, threatens to continue to do so in the future, and now contends that because plaintiffs did not on their application for temporary injunction prove the extent of their damages, they are not entitled to said injunction.
The rule is well settled that: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
A Colo. Corp.. v. Felix Bros. Inc.
...he cannot escape liability simply because it has become difficult to measure the damage with exactness.”) (citing Ditus v. Beahm, 123 Colo. 550, 232 P.2d 184 (1951)). This preference toward injunctive relief has been stated in terms of a strong presumption. See Ditus, 232 P.2d at 185 (“The ......
-
Dominion Video v. Echostar Satellite Corp., No. 03-1274.
...do the Colorado cases regarding irreparable harm findings in do-not-compete cases bolster Dominion's argument. In Ditus v. Beahm, 123 Colo. 550, 232 P.2d 184, 185 (1951), the Colorado Supreme Court indicated its overwhelming preference for and general presumption that awarding injunctive re......
-
Cornerstone v. Wheat Ridge Renewal Auth.
...harm to Cornerstone potentially greater than that suffered by a landowner whose property has been condemned. Cf. Ditus v. Beahm, 123 Colo. 550, 232 P.2d 184 (1951)(loss of future business from breach of covenant not to compete presumed irreparable for purposes of obtaining injunctive Piz re......
-
American Television and Communications Corp. v. Manning, s. 81CA0128
...difficulty in measuring the monetary value of a lost customer raises a presumption that legal damages are inadequate. Ditus v. Beahm, 123 Colo. 550, 232 P.2d 184 (1951). Therefore, we hold that, based on the evidence presented, defendant's continuing conduct is likely to cause irreparable h......