J. C. Pirkle Mach. Co. v. Walters
Decision Date | 11 April 1949 |
Docket Number | 16527. |
Citation | 52 S.E.2d 853,205 Ga. 167 |
Parties | J. C. PIRKLE MACHINERY CO., Inc. v. WALTERS. |
Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
The petition set forth no cause of action; and the trial judge did not err in sustaining a general demurrer thereto.
J C. Pirkle Machinery Company sought to enjoin Robert V Walters, a former employee, from violating the negative restrictive covenants of an employment contract and to recover damages for the breach of the restrictive covenants. The restrictive clause of the contract provided as follows '(1) That he will not divulge to anyone any of the knowledge he has acquired while employed by said company, in any manner, with reference to said company's business, either while he is employed by said company, or after he has severed his connection with said company; (2) that he will not open up a business of his own, doing the same kind of business as said company is now engaged, in the following States, to wit: Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, and Tennessee, within a period of ten years from the date he may sever his connection with the above said company; neither will he become employed by any company doing the same kind of business as that of the above said company, for a period of ten years, from the date he may sever his connection with the above said company, in any of the above said States.'
The petition alleged: 'Plaintiff shows that his (plaintiff's) office is at No. 101 1/2 Main Street, at East Point, Georgia, Fulton County, from which office he does business in Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Alabama, Tennessee, and Missippi, and has, in the past, enjoyed a considerable business and large profit by having, as aforesaid, the listings, manufacturers, and vendors of such properties, and his private way, manner, methods, and course of carrying on business.' It was then alleged that the defendant had violated the restrictive clause of the contract by going into business in competition with the plaintiff.
The trial court sustained a general demurrer to the petition; and to this judgment the plaintiff excepted.
J. C. Bowden, of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
O. J. Coogler, Jr., and Newell Jones, both of Atlanta, for defendant in error.
The first question presented to this court is whether or not the restrictive covenant is a reasonable limitation as to territory.
Whether the restraints imposed by an employment contract are reasonable is a question of law for determination by the court. Rakestraw v. Lanier, 104 Ga. 188, 194, 30 S.E. 735, 69 Am.St.Rep. 154. The restrictions imposed upon the promisor must not be larger than are necessary for the protection of the promisee. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Watkins v. Avnet, Inc.
...862, 114 S.E.2d 26; Thomas v. Coastal Industrial Services, Incorporated, 214 Ga. 832, 108 S.E.2d 328; J. C. Pirkle Machinery Company, Incorporated v. Walters, 205 Ga. 167, 52 S.E.2d 853; Orkin Exterminating Company, Incorporated, of South Georgia v. Dewberry, 204 Ga. 794, 51 S.E.2d 669; Rak......
-
Britt v. Davis, 32672
...of law for determination by the court. Rakestraw v. Lanier, 104 Ga. 188, 194, 30 S.E. 735 (1898)." J. C. Pirkle Machinery Co., Inc. v. Walters, 205 Ga. 167, 168, 52 S.E.2d 853, 854 (1949); Wake Broadcasters, Inc. v. Crawford, 215 Ga. 862, 114 S.E.2d 26 (1960); Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc. ......
-
Artistic Ornamental Iron Co. v. Wilkes, 19879
...620, 625, 127 S.E. 891; Orkin Exterminating Co. of South Ga. v. Dewberry, 204 Ga. 794, 802(1), 51 S.E.2d 669; J. C. Pirkle Machinery Co. v. Walters, 205 Ga. 167, 52 S.E. 853. Judgment All the Justices concur. ...
-
Mike Bajalia, Inc. v. Pike, 25527
...restrictive employment agreement are reasonable is a question of law, to be determined by the court. J. C. Pirkle Machinery Company, Inc., v. Walters, 205 Ga. 167, 168, 52 S.E.2d 853. And it is settled that 'The rule that this court will not interfere with the discretion of the trial judge ......