Jewel Box Stores Corp. v. Morrow, 687
Decision Date | 02 February 1968 |
Docket Number | No. 687,687 |
Citation | 272 N.C. 659,158 S.E.2d 840 |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Parties | JEWEL BOX STORES CORPORATION and the Jewel Box of Morganton, Inc. v. J. Roy MORROW. |
Stern, Rendleman & Clark, by David M. Clark and Robert O. Klepfer, Jr., Greenboro, for plaintiff appellees.
Simpson & Simpson, by Dan R. Simpson, Morganton, for defendant appellant.
This action is for an injunction to restrain the seller of a business from breaching his covenant not to compete with the purchaser. Its venue is the county in which plaintiffs or defendant (or any of them) resided at its commencement, G.S. § 1--81. For the purpose of suing and being sued, the residence of a domestic corporation (formed after 1 July 1957 and having a registered office) is the county in which the registered office of the corporation is located. G.S. § 1--79. A registered office may be, but need not be, the same as the corporation's place of business. G.S. § 55--13. Defendant's first assignment of error is to Judge Armstrong's order denying defendant's motion for a change of venue. This order recites that the registered office of both plaintiffs is in Guilford County. Defendant does not challenge this finding. The action therefore was properly brought and heard in Guilford County. Defendant's first assignment of error is not sustained.
Assignments of error 2--7, based upon corresponding exceptions, are to the failure of the court to construe the written contract between plaintiffs and defendant in accordance with defendant's contentions. Although each purports to challenge a specific finding of fact, assignments 2--7, as well as defendant's remaining assignments 8--12, attack the court's conclusions of law. They raise only the question whether the facts found support the judgment, or whether error of law appears on the face of the record. 1 Strong, N.C.Index, Appeal and Error § 21 (1957).
The appeal poses this question: Is defendant's covenant, made at the time he sold his retail jewelry business to plaintiffs, not to engage in that business in the Town of Morganton and within a radius of 10 miles of its city limits for a period of 10 years from the date of sale, a valid and enforceable contract?
It is the rule today that when one sells a trade or business and, as an incident of the sale, covenants not to engage in the same business in competition with the purchaser, the covenant is valid and enforceable (1) if it is reasonably necessary to protect the legitimate interest of the purchaser; (2) if it is reasonable with respect to both time and territory; and (3) if it does not interfere with the interest of the public. G.S. § 75--4; G.S. § 75--5(d); Waldron Buick Co. v. General Motors Corp., 254 N.C. 117, 126, 118 S.E.2d 559, 566; Sineath v. Katzis, 218 N.C. 740, 12 S.E.2d 671; Morehead Sea Food Co. v. Way, 169 N.C. 679, 86 S.E. 603; Shute v. Heath, 131 N.C. 281, 42 S.E. 704; King v. Fountain, 126 N.C. 196, 35 S.E. 427; Kramer v. Old, 119 N.C. 1, 25 S.E. 813; Cowan v. Fairbrother, 118 N.C. 406, 24 S.E. 212, 32 L.R.A. 829. Cf. the tests which determine the validity of an employee's covenant not to compete with his employer at the termination of their relationship. Waldron Buick Co. v. General Motors Corp., supra; Welcome Wagon International, Inc. v. Pender, 255 N.C. 244, 120 S.E.2d 739; Kadis v. Britt, 224 N.C. 154, 29 S.E.2d 543, 152 A.L.R. 405; Beam v. Rutledge, 217 N.C. 670, 9 S.E.2d 476; 17 C.J.S. Contracts § 247 (1963).
The modern rule permitting the sale of good will recognizes that one who, by his skill and industry, builds up a business, acquires a property right in the good will of his patrons and that this property is not marketable Kramer v. Old, supra 119 N.C. at 8--9, 25 S.E. at 813--814. Accord, Beam v. Rutledge, supra; Morehead Sea Food Co. v. Way, supra; Wooten v. Harris, 153 N.C. 43, 68 S.E. 898. See Breckenridge, Restraint of Trade in North Carolina, 7 N.C.L.Rev. 249 (1929).
The reasonableness of a restraining covenant is a matter of law for the court to decide. Shute v. Heath, supra; 7 N.C.L.Rev. 249, 256. In each instance, the reasonableness of the restraint depends upon the circumstances of the particular case. Shute v. Shute, 176 N.C. 462, 97 S.E. 392; Morehead Sea Food Co. v. Way, supra; King v. Fountain, supra; 17 C.J.S. Contracts § 246 (1963). 'A contract, for instance, for a valid consideration not to engage in the manufacture and sale of firearms in general use, would be allowed to cover a larger extent of territory than would a contract not to engage in the manufacture of timber or the ginning of cotton.' Shute v. Heath, supra, 131 N.C. at 282, 42 S.E. at 704. For comprehensive annotations covering the reasonableness of territorial and time limitations, see respectively 46 A.L.R.2d 119 (1956) and 45 A.L.R.2d 77 (1956).
In the cases cited below, this Court has upheld covenants not to compete which accompanied the sale of a trade or business and contained limitations of ten, fifteen, and twenty years, as well as limitations for the life of one of the parties:
Baumgarten v. Broadway, 77 N.C. 8 ( ); Baker v. Cordon, 86 N.C. 116 ( ); Cowan v. Fairbrother, 118 N.C. 406, 24 S.E. 212, 32 L.R.A. 829 ( ); Kramer v. Oid, 119 N.C. 1, 25 S.E. 813 ( ); Disosway v. Edwards, 134 N.C. 254, 46 S.E. 501 ( ); Anders v. Gardner, 151 N.C. 604, 66 S.E. 665 ( ); Wooten v. Harris, 153 N.C. 43, 68 S.E. 898 ( ); Faust v. Rohr, 166 N.C. 187, 81 S.E. 1096 ( ); Morehead Sea Food Co. v. Way, 169 N.C. 679, 86 S.E. 603 ( ); Sineath v. Katzis, 218 N.C. 740, 12 S.E.2d 810 ( ); Thompson v. Turner, 245 N.C. 478, 96 S.E.2d 263 ( ). For the cases from other jurisdictions involving limitations of ten years or more, see Annot.: Sale--Covenant as to Competition--Time, 45 A.L.R.2d 77, 238--291 (1956). See also 7 N.C.L.Rev. 248, 256 (1929); 38 N.C.L.Rev. 395, 396 (1960).
In this case, defendant sold a jewelry store which was a sole proprietorship. A jeweler who has attained the confidence of the public in his integrity and knowledge of gemmology imparts a peculiar value to the good will of his business, and he will take it with him when he leaves the business. The average person is unable to evaluate a precious stone and to judge its genuineness or perfection. When he makes a purchase, he will seek a jeweler of good repute--just as he would in selecting a doctor or a lawyer. As Avery, J., said in Cowan v. Fairbrother, supra, 118 N.C. at 411--412, 24 S.E. at 213: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
A.E.P. Industries, Inc. v. McClure
...434, 444 A.2d 75. For North Carolina cases see Enterprises, Inc. v. Heim, 276 N.C. 475, 173 S.E.2d 316 (1970); Jewel Box Stores v. Morrow, 272 N.C. 659, 158 S.E.2d 840 (1968); Moskin Bros. v. Swartzberg, 199 N.C. 539, 155 S.E. 154 (1930); Schultz and Assoc. v. Ingram, 38 N.C.App. 422, 248 S......
-
Clinical Staffing, Inc. v. Worldwide Travel Staffing Ltd.
...evaluating a covenant not to compete, a court must consider time and geographic limitations in tandem. See, e.g., Jewel Box Stores Corp., 272 N.C. at 665, 158 S.E.2d at 844. Generally, the shorter the time period in the covenant not to compete, the larger the geographic restriction may be. ......
-
Bayly, Martin & Fay, Inc. v. Pickard
...266, 513 N.E.2d 875, 877 (1987).5 Vulcan Powder Co. v. Hercules Powder Co., 96 Cal. 510, 31 P. 581 (1892).6 Jewel Box Stores Corp. v. Morrow, 272 N.C. 659, 158 S.E.2d 840, 843 (1968); Annot., "Enforceability of Restrictive Covenant, Ancillary to Employment Contract, as Affected by Territori......
-
Campbell Alliance Grp., Inc. v. Forrest
...a covenant not to compete, a court must consider time and geographic limitations in tandem. See, e.g., Jewel Box Stores Corp. v. Morrow, 272 N.C. 659, 665, 158 S.E.2d 840, 844 (1968). Generally, the shorter the time period in the covenant not to compete, the larger the geographic restrictio......