Ericson v. Jayette
| Decision Date | 16 December 1941 |
| Citation | 5 So.2d 453,149 Fla. 82 |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
| Parties | ERICSON et al. v. JAYETTE et ux. |
Rehearing Denied Jan. 27, 1942.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Dade County; Richard H. Hunt judge.
McKay Dixon & Dejarnette, of Miami, for appellants.
Eldon L Boyce, of Miami, for appellees.
On January 13 1939, Nels Ericson and wife, Esther Ericson, executed a bill of sale to Ray A. Jayette and wife, Hazel M. Jayette, thereby conveying a restaurant business commonly known as 'The Cottage Inn', situated at 1455 Biscayne Boulevard in Miami, Florida, for the sum of $10,000. The Ericsons, by a term of the bill of sale, covenanted not to engage in the restaurant business in Dade County, Florida for a period of ten years thereafter.
The restrictive covenant is viz:
'And in further consideration of the premises, and of the payment by the said parties of the second part, of the consideration hereinbefore expressed and for the purposes of enabling said parties of the second part, their personal representatives and assigns to acquire and enter upon, manage, conduct, and carry on the aforesaid business of the said Nels Ericson and Esther Ericson, his wife, the said parties of the first part for themselves, their personal representatives and assigns, covenanted, granted, promised and agreed, and do by these presents covenant, grant, promise and agree to and with the said parties of the second part, their personal representatives and assigns, that from and after the execution of this Agreement, they (the parties of the first part) nor either of them will not at any time for the period of ten (10) years from and after the date hereof, either alone or jointly with, or as agent for or employee of any person or persons, firms or corporations, excepting only as agent for or employee of the said parties of the second part hereunto, their personal representatives and assigns, and either directly or indirectly set up, exercise, conduct, or be engaged, employed or interested in or carry on in the County of Dade and State of Florida, any occupation, interests or privileges similar to or of the same nature with the business, occupation, interests, or privileges so heretofore exercised, conducted and carried on by the said Nels Ericson and Esther Ericson, his wife, and so hereby sold and assigned, transferred and set over to said parties of the second part, nor set up, make, carry on or encourage, or be engaged or interested in any opposition, either directly or indirectly, to the said business so hereby sold, assigned, transferred and set over, and so hereinafter to be carried on by the said parties of the second part hereunto, their personal representatives and assigns, nor do anything to the prejudice thereof.'
The lower court entered a restraining order against the Ericsons and Clara Widgren restraining them from operating and running a restaurant located at 5600 Biscayne Boulevard...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Janet Realty Corp. v. Hoffman's, Inc.
... ... agreement. See Massari v. Salciccia, 102 Fla. 847, ... 136 So. 552; Love v. Miami Laundry Co., 118 Fla ... 137, 160 So. 32; Ericson v. Jayette, 149 Fla. 82, 5 ... So.2d 453; Wilson v. Pigue, 151 Fla. 734, 10 So.2d ... The facts in the ... case at bar can or may be ... ...
-
Vendo Co. v. Stoner
...competitor is likewise not tantamount to engaging in competition (Wineteer v. Kite, 397 S.W.2d 752, 759 (Mo.App.1965); Ericson v. Jayette, 149 Fla. 82, 5 So.2d 453, 454 (1942)), and that both lending And leasing is not a violation of such a covenant (McKeighan Wachter Co. v. Swanson, 138 Wa......
-
Midlands Transp. Co. v. Apple Lines, Inc.
...In accord with the authority and the reasoning of the Wineteer case, see Adams v. Adams, 156 Neb. 778, 58 N.W.2d 172; Ericson v. Jayette, 149 Fla. 82, 5 So.2d 453; McKeighan Wachter Co. v. Swanson, 138 Wash. 682, 245 P. 10, affirmed on rehearing, 141 Wash. 694, 250 P. 353; Houston Transfer ......
-
Wineteer v. Kite, 24257
...of property by a vendor to a competitor of the vendee does not of and in itself violate a covenant not to compete. In Ericson v. Jayette, 149 Fla. 82, 5 So.2d 453, decided by the Supreme Court of Florida, the sellers sold and conveyed their restaurant business by a bill of sale containing a......