Flynn v. Murphy
| Decision Date | 04 March 1966 |
| Citation | 350 Mass. 352,215 N.E.2d 109 |
| Parties | Frank A. FLYNN v. Patrick C. MURPHY et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Philip Goltz, Fall River, for defendants.
Edward Wolper, Framingham, for plaintiff.
Before WILKINS, C.J., and WHITTEMORE, CUTTER, SPIEGEL and REARDON, JJ.
The plaintiff, a former employee of Precision Thread Co., Inc. (Precision), a Massachusetts corporation, brings this bill in equity against Precision and four trustees of a trust instrument under Precision's profit sharing retirement plan to recover a sum of money allegedly due him under the plan.
The judge made a report of the material facts found by him under the statute. G.L. c. 214, § 23. The evidence is not reported.
The plaintiff was an assistant chemist engaged in the manufacture of extruded rubber thread. As such he became entitled to $1,820.67 as his share in the plan. There was a provision that 'a member would forfeit the unpaid portion of his account if he entered into competition with the company and entered the employ of a competitor, or revealed trade secrets of the company within two years after his separation from employment.' The plaintiff severed relations with Precision and became an employee of S.P.A. Fillattice, of Milan, Italy. The defendants determined that the plaintiff had forfeited his share because he had violated the provisions of the plan. The plaintiff 'engaged with the Italian company to set up a new department engaged in the process called Spandex.' Precision at the time of the plaintiff's employment was also experimenting with Spandex, but the plaintiff was not engaged in that department. 'On these facts,' the trial judge found that the plaintiff did not enter into competition with Precision, or reveal trade secrets, and that although he entered the employ of a company which was in competition in some respects, he entered a department which was not in competition. The judge found that the plaintiff is entitled to his share in the fund.
The final decree adjudged that the defendant trustees are indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of $1,820.67 and interest and ordered its payment. The defendant trustees appealed.
By the phrase 'on these facts' the trial judge based his conclusion upon the findings reported by him. In a report of material facts made under G.L. c. 214, § 23, there is no room for any implication of further facts. Topor v. Topor, 287 Mass. 473,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kroeger v. Stop & Shop Companies, Inc.
...compensation agreements should receive unconditional enforcement. That had been the accepted view as manifested by Flynn v. Murphy, 350 Mass. 352, 353, 215 N.E.2d 109 (1966), in which a forfeiture provision was enforced without discussion. See also Chase v. New York Life Ins. Co., 188 Mass.......
-
Rochester Corporation v. Rochester, 15408.
...Gould v. Continental Coffee Company (D.C.N.Y.1969) 304 F.Supp. 1, 3 (dictum, held employment did not conflict); Flynn v. Murphy (1966) 350 Mass. 352, 215 N.E.2d 109, 110; Brown Stove Works v. Kimsey, supra; Van Pelt v. Berefco, Inc. (1965) 60 Ill.App.2d 415, 208 N.E.2d 858, 865; Garner v. G......
-
Van Hosen v. Bankers Trust Co.
...625 (1959--1960); 57 Iowa L.Rev. 75 (1971); 61 Nw. U.L.Rev. 290 (1966); Annot., 18 A.L.R.3d 1246. See also Flynn v. Murphy, 350 Mass. 352, 215 N.E.2d 109 (1966). II. Murphy v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 260 Iowa 422, 148 N.W.2d 400 (1967), involved a problem akin to that instantly presente......
-
Food Fair Stores, Inc. v. Greeley
...aff. 312 F.2d 250 (8th Cir. 1963); Brown Stove Works, Inc. v. Kimsey, 119 Ga.App. 453, 167 S.E.2d 693 (1969); Flynn v. Murphy, 215 N.E.2d 109 (Mass.1966); Van Pelt v. Berefco, Inc., 60 Ill.App.2d 415, 208 N.E.2d 858 (1965); Molburg v. Hunter Hosiery, Inc., 102 N.H. 422, 158 A.2d 288 (1960);......