Iron City Laundry Co. v. Leyton

• Decision Date: 13 October 1913
• Docket Number: 188-1913
• Citation: 55 Pa.Super. 93
• Parties: Iron City Laundry Company, Appellant, v. Leyton
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

55 Pa.Super. 93

Iron City Laundry Company, Appellant, v. Leyton

No. 188-1913

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

October 13, 1913

Argued May 2, 1913 [Syllabus Matter] [Syllabus Matter]

Appeal by plaintiff, from decree of C.P. Allegheny Co., Fourth Term 1911, No. 103, dismissing bill in equity in case of Iron City Laundry Company v. H. Leyton and Crown Laundry Company Limited.

Bill in equity for an injunction.

Cohen, J., found the facts to be as follows:

1. H. Leyton, the defendant, was for some years prior to 1906, employed by the Imperial Laundry Company of Pittsburg, __ Pa. __, as a collector and driver, and about the year 1905, the plant of the Imperial Laundry Company having been destroyed by fire, the defendant, H. Leyton, was employed by the plaintiff, the Iron City Laundry Company, in the same capacity, under a contract which was not offered in evidence. On June 11, 1908, the written contract, marked exhibit No. 1, which was offered in evidence, was entered into by the parties.

In said contract, the party of the second part is " H. Leyton for himself and for his minor son, Samuel Leyton." The said party of the second part agrees to act as laundry driver and collector for the party of the first part to " Collect laundry work from any and all persons from whom he can get it and bring the same to the said party of the first part and when the same is laundried to return it to the customer or agent from whom it was obtained, and to collect the money for said work, and to pay weekly to said party of the first part all money so collected, said weekly settlement to be made full and complete by said party of second part upon Tuesday of every week during the continuance of the employment under this contract: and finally upon the termination of said employment. Said party of the second part further agrees that while in the employ of said party of the first part he will be governed in the conduct of said business by the rules and directions given him from time to time, and that he will faithfully perform all his duties.

" The said H. Leyton and his minor son, Samuel Leyton, shall not voluntarily leave the employ of said party of the first part without first having given two weeks' notice in writing of the intention so to do; and in the event of the termination of said employment, whether voluntarily or involuntarily on the part of party of the second part, the said party of the second part hereby covenants and agrees that he will not for the period of ninety days thereafter, enter into the business of soliciting or collecting laundry or laundry work on his own account or in the employ or behalf of any other person, persons or company; or in any wise interfere with the good will of said party of the first part, or attempt to influence, solicit or take away for himself, or any other person, firm or corporation, any of the customers of the said Iron City Laundry Company within the County of Allegheny and State of Pennsylvania.

" This agreement may be summarily terminated and said employment ended for any cause or reason which to the Iron City Laundry Company may seem good and sufficient."

The compensation of the party of the second part is on a sliding scale, ranging from a minimum of a commission of ten per cent and a salary of $ 10.00 per week, to the maximum of $ 25.00 per week and a commission of five per cent on a total amount over $ 100, for both Leyton and his son.

2. At the time of Leyton's employment by the said Iron City Laundry Company the said Leyton had about 300 customers, and he has had about the same number with some variations, when the number was increased or diminished, until the present time. No customers or route, so far as the evidence shows, was given to the defendant Leyton by the Iron City Laundry Company, and it appears from the testimony the said Leyton continued to solicit work after he had entered the employ of the plaintiff from the same people that had been giving him work previously, and from such other customers as he could make since that time.

3. In accordance with the contract and custom, the defendant Leyton settled with the plaintiff weekly, paying all bills for laundry at the end of the week without regard to whether he collected for the same from the customers, and he has $ 300 invested in this way. The said defendant Leyton has paid the Iron City Laundry Company in full, except for the last week.

4. On July 24, the defendant, H. Leyton, entered the employ of the Crown Laundry, without any knowledge of the Crown Laundry of his employment by the Iron City Laundry.

5. Plaintiff admits that when Leyton started to work for it he had a route of customers of his own and that plaintiff never furnished him with any customers.

6. The contract was duly executed by the parties and has been executed and carried out continuously according to its terms by both parties from its date until July 24, 1911. The defendant Leyton left the employment of plaintiff on July 24, 1911, voluntarily without giving two weeks' notice as required by the contract.

7. Defendant on July 24, 1911, entered the employment of the Crown...