Larsen v. Burroughs
| Decision Date | 08 February 1938 |
| Docket Number | 43983. |
| Citation | 277 N.W. 463,224 Iowa 740 |
| Parties | LARSEN et al. v. BURROUGHS. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Plymouth County; R. G. Rodman, Judge.
This is an action brought to enjoin the defendant from pursuing the practice of medical arts in Le Mars, in this state, for ten years from the expiration of a certain contract to which reference will be found in the opinion. Defendant admitted making the contract but pleaded that because of a change of membership in the partnership he owed no obligation to these plaintiffs. He also asserted that the written contract was breached by the plaintiffs, and that as a consequence they were entitled to no relief. Injunction was granted as prayed hence this appeal.
Affirmed.
Diamond & Jory, of Sheldon, for appellant.
Roseberry & Pitts, of Le Mars, for appellees.
The plaintiff is a partnership of medical men operating as the Le Mars Clinic. In 1934, Shepard, one of the members, became disabled, and O'Toole entered the partnership. In September, 1934, the defendant was advised of the prospective retirement of Shepard, and negotiations were had which finally resulted in the execution, on September 20th of that year, of the contract which furnishes the basis of discussion herein. After providing for the payment of $1,800 a year beginning October 1, 1934, and other specifications which we need not now consider, the contract provides: " Party of the Second Part agrees that he will not engage in the practice of medicine or surgery or any of the healing arts, in the City of Le Mars, Iowa, outside of the Le Mars Clinic group (same being Party of the First Part) for the period of ten years from the date of expiration of this contract, without the consent of the said Party of the First Part."
Following the execution of this contract defendant was introduced socially and professionally to the plaintiffs' patients, was taken into consultations, and recommended as a competent and dependable doctor. The retiring physician, Shepard, recommended him to his patients, took him with him to make calls, and told his patients that he (Shepard) was leaving the clinic and that thereafter they should call for the defendant and he would take care of them. Generally the defendant was given every encouragement and assistance to work within the circle of the plaintiffs' patients. He had no previous acquaintance in that territory, and it appears without question from the record that whatever standing he had in the community as a medical man was derived from his contact with the plaintiff group.
During the course of the year provided for by the contract some of the members of the plaintiff partnership began to doubt the defendant's interest in group practice, and this was the subject of some consideration among the plaintiff partners. As the expiration of the term of the contract approached, the subject of defendant's further connection with or relationship to the plaintiffs naturally became of interest to all parties. As we read the record, there was no agreement, express or implied, for a definite extension of the term of defendant's employment, but it was finally agreed, tacitly at least, that he should continue to work for the plaintiffs under a somewhat larger or better salary. During the time matters were in this condition there was some discussion between the defendant and the plaintiffs as to the status of defendant. These matters need not now have specific attention.
On February 9, 1936, the plaintiffs gave to the defendant the following notice:
Following the termination of the time fixed by this notice, the defendant, according to the allegations of the petition (which are not seriously denied in the record) " is now engaged, and is about to engage, in the practice of the healing arts in the city of Le Mars, outside of the plaintiff group, in violation of his contract, and will continue to do so unless restrained by this court."
What has been said is sufficient to indicate in a general way the controversy before us. The record is long and its examination has involved a considerable amount of labor, the result of which has persuaded us that the trial court not only accurately perceived the rules of law governing cases of this kind, but correctly applied them to the case before it; and, since the decree of the trial court in concise language sums up the record made before it, we quote rather extensively from it:
" As shown by the pleadings and the evidence in the case, the plaintiffs, at the commencement of this action, were engaged as a partnership in the practice of the profession of physicians and surgeons in the city of Le Mars, Plymouth County, Iowa. The Le Mars Clinic had been operated for a number of years prior to the commencement of the action as a copartnership, although a few changes occurred from time to time in the personnel of the individuals who were members of that partnership, and such a change, or substitution, was in contemplation at the time the contract of employment, ‘ Exhibit D,’ was entered into between the said partnership and the defendant. The contemplated change was shortly thereafter effected by the sale of the interest of Doctor W. T. Shepard, retiring partner, to the plaintiff, Doctor L. C. O'Toole.
The defendant, Doctor H. H. Burroughs, at the time of his employment by the plaintiffs, had but recently completed his interneship, and had never resided or practiced his profession in the aforesaid city of Le Mars, Plymouth County, Iowa; and prior to said employment, had no acquaintanceship of any extent in said city of Le Mars or vicinity.
The aforesaid written contract of employment, ‘ Exhibit D,’ provided that the defendant was to work for the plaintiffs, as a physician and surgeon, for the period of one year, commencing October 1st, 1934, and contained a provision to the effect that the defendant would not engage in the practice of medicine or surgery, or any of the healing arts, in the city of Le Mars, Iowa, outside of the Le Mars Clinic group, for the period of ten years from the date of expiration of said contract, without the consent of the members of the Le Mars Clinic. It is the latter provision which the plaintiffs claim has been violated by the defendant, and against such violation they seek the injunctive relief prayed.
The privilege of a duly licensed physician to practice his chosen profession when and where he may wish is a right which the courts will zealously...
To continue reading
Request your trial