Lynch v. Clinch Motor Co

Decision Date22 September 1921
Citation108 S.E. 641
PartiesLYNCH et al. v. CLINCH MOTOR CO.
CourtVirginia Supreme Court

Appeal from Circuit Court, Washington County.

Bill by R. T. Sutton and another, copartners as the Clinch Motor Company, against T. B. Lynch and another, to enjoin defendants from entering the automobile business. From an order refusing to dissolve the injunction, granted in accordance with the prayer of the bill, the defendants appeal. Appeal dismissed without prejudice.

Burns & Kidd and Bird & Lively, all of Lebanon, for appellants.

Finney & Wilson and S. B. Quillen, all of Lebanon, for appellees.

BURKS, J. R. T. Sutton and C. B. Sutton, partners as Clinch Motor Company, filed their bill in equity to enjoin T. B. Lynch and Joe Monk from going into the automobile and garage business at Lebanon, in Russell county, Va., in violation of their alleged contract not to do so within a given time. Lynch and Monk had been engaged in that business as partners, under the firm name of Lebanon Garage & Machine Company, for some time prior to January 13, 1919, and both partnerships were so engaged on that date, when the following contract was entered into:

"This contract, made this the i3th day of January, 1919, by and between Lebanon Garage & Machine Company, hereinafter known as the party of the first part, and Clinch Motor Company, hereinafter known as party of the second part, witnesseth:

"That party of the first part this day sell to party of the second part their garage and shop equipment and accessories, which includes Ford and Maxwell parts; party of the first part agrees to sell party of the second part their parts, accessories, shop equipment, and building at cost, plus expense of placing same in stock; party of the first part agrees to not go into garage or automobile business within 3 years from the above-mentioned date, within a radius of twenty miles on either side of Lebanon, Russell county, Va. [Signed] L. C. Mch. Co., by Joe Monk, Party of the First Part. Clinch Motor Co., by R. T. Sutton, Mgr., Party of the Second Part."

Soon after this contract was entered into a corporation was organized and chartered to do a rival business in the town of Lebanon, in which both Lynch and Monk became officers and active participants inthe business. The original bill was a pure bill of injunction, but soon after it was filed an amended bill was filed, making some changes in and additions to the original bill, and the prayer of the bill was enlarged, so as to ask that the defendants be required to compensate the complainants for the damages already done, and for the ascertainment of such damages by proper accounts to be ordered and taken. The application for the injunction, of which notice had been duly given, was to have been heard on January 13, 1920, but owing to causes for which the complainants were not responsible was not heard till March 10, 1920. In the meantime the bill had been amended, and the motion was heard on the original and amended bills, the demurrers and answers to each, and upon affidavits filed by the complainants and the defendants. Written briefs were also filed by counsel on both sides. Upon this hearing the demurrers were overruled, and the injunction was awarded as prayed for on March 10, 1920. On April 20, 1920, the defendants gave notice that they would move to dissolve the injunction on April 29, 1920. on the latter date the motion to dissolve was heard upon the pleadings and affidavits heard at the original hearing, and on the affidavits of the parties thereafter made, and on certain written motions filed by the defendants which need not now be considered. The court took time to consider of its judgment, and by an order entered June 18, 1920, refused to dissolve the injunction. Prom this order the present appeal was taken.

The right to appeal from an order refusing to dissolve an injunction seems to be settled in this state, and is placed on the ground that it adjudicates the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Mangum v. Maryland State Bd. of Censors
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • November 25, 1974
    ...100 Pa. 379, 382 (1882); Houston Compressed Steel Corp. v. State, 456 S.W.2d 768, 773 (Tex.Civ.App.1970); Lynch v. Clinch Motor Co., 131 Va. 202, 108 S.E. 641, 642 (1921). Moreover, in the present situation, it was even clearer that the trial court should have been able to exercise jurisdic......
  • Castillo v. Industrial Commission
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • April 16, 1974
    ...granting temporary injunctions; See Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Blankenship, 70 S.W.2d 258 (Tex.Civ.App.1934); Lynch v. Clinch Motor Co., 131 Va. 202, 108 S.E. 641 (1921); intermediate orders involving receiverships; See R. W. Holding Corp. v. R.I.W. Waterproofing & Decorating Co., 131 Fla. 4......
  • Bragg v. Ives
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court
    • December 22, 1927
    ...in question is or is not a nuisance in fact must be determined by the chancellor according to the facts before him. Lynch v. Clinch Motor Co., 131 Va. 202, 108 S. E. 641. The decree of the lower court sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the bill is reversed, and the cause remanded, to be......
  • Whitehurst v. Garrett
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • October 10, 1928
    ... ... August 7, 1926 ...          A. W ... Lane, trading as the Lane Motor Company, was an automobile ... dealer in Pontiac and Studebaker automobiles, in Elizabeth ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT