King v. Fountain
| Decision Date | 20 March 1900 |
| Parties | KING v. FOUNTAIN. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from superior court, Pitt county; Bowman, Judge.
Action by J. F. King against L. W. Fountain to restrain defendant from conducting the livery business in town of Greenville. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.
Where a husband agreed, in consideration of the sale of his business not to again engage in the same business in the same town his subsequent conduct of such business as agent for his wife constitutes a breach of the agreement, entitling the buyer to an injunction against his continuance.
Fleming & Moore, for appellant.
Jarvis & Blow, for appellee.
On October 26, 1899, the defendant was engaged in the livery business at Greenville, N. C., and on that day for a valuable consideration, sold to the plaintiff his teams, vehicles, etc., and agreed that he would not run or operate any other livery business in the town of Greenville for the period of three years from that date. Soon thereafter the wife of the defendant opened and engaged in the livery business in said town, and employed the defendant, her husband, to superintend the business, which he is now operating and conducting in said town. On the hearing of a restraining order the injunction was dissolved, and the plaintiff appealed.
The general rule was, and still is, that contracts in restraint of trade and the like are void, on the ground that they are against public policy, similar to contracts illegal, and contra mores. Clark, Cont. 451--457. This rule has been modified in order to protect the business of the covenantee or promisee, when it can be done without detriment to the public interest. The reasonableness of such restraint depends in each case on all the circumstances. If it be greater than is required for the protection of the promisee, the agreement is unreasonable and void. If it is a reasonable limit in time and space, the current of decisions is that the agreement is reasonable, and will be upheld. In the present case the restriction is confined in terms to a single county, town and to a period of three years. This seems to this court not unreasonable. The restriction applies to one individual only and it is quite probable that, if the demands of that place require more extensive livery business, some other enterprising citizen will supply the demand, especially if it be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Welcome Wagon Intern., Inc. v. Pender, 599
...Cowan v. Fairbrother, 118 N.C. 406, 24 S.E. 212, 32 L.R.A. 829; Kramer v. Old, 119 N.C. 1, 25 S.E. 813, 34 L.R.A. 389; King v. Fountain, 126 N.C. 196, 35 S.E. 427; Hauser v. Harding, supra; Jolly v. Brady, 127 N.C. 142, 37 S.E. 153; Anders v. Gardner, 151 N.C. 604, 66 S.E. Wooten v. Harris,......
-
Moskin Bros., Inc. v. Swartzberg
... ... Heath, 131 N.C. 282, 42 S.E. 704; Jolly v ... Brady, 127 N.C. 142, 37 S.E. 153; Hauser v ... Harding, 126 N.C. 295, 35 S.E. 586; King v ... Fountain, 126 N.C. 196, 35 S.E. 427; Kramer v ... Old, 119 N.C. 67, 25 S.E. 813, 34 L. R. A. 389, 56 Am ... St. Rep. 650; Cowan v ... ...
-
Sineath v. Katzis
... ... business for the covenantor to engage in such business in the ... name of another who has in fact no interest therein. King ... v. Fountain, 126 N.C. 196, 35 S.E. 427 ... The ... majority, and the better-considered cases, support the ... ...
-
Faust v. Rohr
...142, 37 S.E. 153; Disosway v. Edwards, 134 N.C. 254, 46 S.E. 501. No question has been made as to the validity of this contract. In King v. Fountain, supra, the court said with respect this point: "The general rule was, and still is, that contracts in restraint of trade and the like are voi......