Kessler v. Puritan Chemical Co., 19929
| Decision Date | 07 February 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 19929,19929 |
| Citation | 213 Ga. 845,102 S.E.2d 495 |
| Parties | Max N. KESSLER et al. v. PURITAN CHEMICAL COMPANY. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Phillips & Johnson, Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
Heyman, Abram & Young, Atlanta, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
Two of the plaintiffs in error entered into employment contracts to sell petitioner's products and merchandise in specifically designated territories, and agreed that, during the time of their employment and for two years after the termination thereof, they would not engage in competition in the area covered by their contracts on behalf of themselves or others. Puritan Chemical Company, the defendant in error and petitioner, sought to enjoin the defendants from conspiring with each other and others to form a competitive business and engaging in the sanitary supply business, in the territory included in the employment contracts, before their contracts had terminated and within two years after the termination of their employment with the petitioner. Demurrers to the petition were filed, heard, and overruled; and after an interlocutory hearing the defendants were temporarily enjoined as prayed. A stipulation was entered before the hearing that two of the defendants, who were the former employees that had executed the employment contracts containing the negative restrictive covenants, had solicited business within the restricted area of the contracts and had sold, and the defendant corporation had shipped goods, to customers who had previously been solicited for business by these defendants as salesmen for the petitioner. The exceptions are to the overruling of the demurrers, to certain rulings made during the hearing, and to the judgment temporarily enjoining the defendants as prayed. Held:
1. The petition alleging violations of negative restrictive covenants of employment contracts, which are reasonable as to time and area and not otherwise unreasonable, the court did not err in overruling the demurrers thereto as to the defendants who were parties to the contracts. While other businesses might fall within the broad category of the language used to describe the petitioner's business 'or any phase thereof,' it is not so indefinite and vague as to be unreasonable, such contracts being divisible as to all other businesses except those similar to the petitioner's. See Hood v. Legg, 160 Ga. 620 (4), 128 S.E. 891; Shirk v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Howard Schultz & Associates of the Southeast, Inc. v. Broniec
...covenant. Compare Durham v. Stand-By Labor, supra. Here the employer urges severance within a single covenant. Kessler v. Puritan Chemical Co., 213 Ga. 845, 102 S.E.2d 495 (1958), is, as the employer contends, inconsistent with Rita Personnel, and was implicitly overruled by According to th......
-
Eubanks v. Puritan Chemical Co.
...for appellants' position, but on careful consideration it appears that after the court had held in the same case, Kessler v. Puritan Chemical Co., 213 Ga. 845, 102 S.E.2d 495, that the plaintiff's pleadings were insufficient, an amended petition was filed which added nothing of significance......
-
Aladdin, Inc. v. Krasnoff
...which is valid, may be enforced even though the second is invalid. Hood v. Legg, 160 Ga. 620(4), 128 S.E. 891; Kessler v. Puritan Chemical Co., 213 Ga. 845, 102 S.E.2d 495. The petition stated a cause of action as to the first covenant, that the employee would not enter a described type of ......
-
Turner v. Robinson, 20285
...as charged; or that Robinson, acting as president or agent of the corporation, has violated the contract. See Kessler v. Puritan Chemical Co., 213 Ga. 845(2), 102 S.E.2d 495. The trial judge did not err in denying an interlocutory injunction as to the defendant corporation, Robinson Tunneli......