Lewis v. Kirkland

• Citation: 160 So. 44,118 Fla. 350
• Parties: LEWIS v. KIRKLAND et al.
• Decision Date: 30 January 1935
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Florida

160 So. 44

118 Fla. 350

LEWIS v. KIRKLAND et al.

Florida Supreme Court, Division B.

January 30, 1935

Suit by Holmes Kirkland and another, as receivers, against A. M Lewis. From the final decree for complainants and an order refusing to dissolve a preliminary injunction and to dismiss the bill of complaint, defendant appeals.

Reversed with directions. Appeal from Circuit Court Hillsborough County; Curtis L. Sparkman, judge.

COUNSEL

Carabello Graham & Cosio, of Tampa, for appellant.

Macfarlane, Pettingill, Macfarlane & Fowler, of Tampa, for appellees.

OPINION

BUFORD Justice.

The appeal here is from final decree and also from order refusing to dissolve a preliminary injunction and to dismiss the bill of complaint.

The appeal from the final decree is sufficient to bring all other questions of controversy arising prior to that decree before this court for review.

The final decree found amongst other things that the appellant, Lewis, had breached the prohibitive restrictions of a certain contract of employment after the termination of his employment with the complainant.

The part of the decree granting the injunction is as follows:

'That the temporary restaining order heretofore issued herein be and the same is hereby made permanent for the period of one year dating from March 12, 1934, and said defendant A. M. Lewis be and he is hereby strictly commanded and ordered during said period to desist and refrain from further soliciting, diverting, receiving or delivering any laundry or dry cleaning from any person or customer of said Towne's Tampa Steam Laundry & Dry Cleaning Company now in receivership who had theretofore been solicited or served by said defendant for and on behalf of said receivership, and who reside in that certain territory situate in Hillsborough County, Florida, described as follows:

'That part of the City bounded on the North by Cass Street, on the East by Hillsborough River, on the South by Lafayette Street, Grand Central Avenue, Atlantic Coast Line Railway, Morrison Avenue and Swann Avenue, and one the West by Lois Avenne [book 200, page 18];

'and the failure of said defendant to comply with the terms and conditions aforesaid shall be a direct contempt of the order of this Court.'

The controlling features of this case are like those involved in the case of Love et al. v. Miami Laundry Company (Fla.) 160 So. 32, decided on rehearing at this term of the...