Mabray v. Williams, 17710
| Decision Date | 28 November 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 17710,17710 |
| Parties | Don Davis MABRAY, Plaintiff in Error, v. George S. WILLIAMS, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Gordon & Gordon, Lamar, for plaintiff in error.
Todd & Statler, Alfred Todd and John C. Statler, Lamar, for defendant in error.
Both parties to this record are physicians. The defendant in error (hereinafter referred to as plaintiff, or Dr. Williams) instituted a suit in the trial court against the plaintiff in error (hereinafter referred to as defendant, or Dr. Mabray) for an injunction to restrain the latter from practicing his profession in Lamar, Colorado in violation of a restrictive covenant in a written contract between plaintiff and defendant.
The complaint, after stating the professional character of the parties, and that plaintiff had long been a practitioner in Lamar, Colorado; had at great expense erected and equipped a Medical Center consisting of some twenty rooms, and had a large and lucrative practice. Defendant was a young physician, having been licensed but a few years prior to the date of the contract. He had never practiced medicine on his own account, and his professional experience was limited to that which he acquired as a doctor in the service of the United States Army. Plaintiff needed an assistant. Having been contacted by defendant, plaintiff entered into a written contract whereby defendant was employed by Dr. Williams, at a stipulated salary. This contract, dated August 1, 1950 was denominated 'Contract of Employment.' It contained the following paragraph:
It was alleged that defendant entered into said employment and continued to perform services under the written contract until March 3, 1955; that from time to time changes in his compensation were agreed upon; that on March 3, 1955 defendant left said employment and immediately established an office in Lamar, Colorado where he practiced his profession, and since said date has continued to so practice medicine and surgery. It was alleged, and not disputed at the trial, that no written consent on the part of Dr. Williams was ever obtained authorizing defendant to independently practice medicine in Lamar, Colorado.
Plaintiff prayed for an injunction restraining defendant from practicing his profession in Lamar, Colorado and for damages for the alleged breach of the contract of employment.
Defendant in his answer admitted the execution of the contract of employment; admitted he was engaged in the general practice of medicine in Lamar, Colorado and alleged that the contract was changed and amended by the parties thereto in December, 1950; that by said change defendant's compensation was to be twenty per cent of the net profits of the business 'carried on by said plaintiff and defendant to August 1, 1951; from and after August 1, 1951 plaintiff was to pay defendant 25 per cent of the net income from said business and to increase at the rate of 5 per cent per year to take effect on August 1 of each and every year thereafter until the defendant was receiving 50 per cent of the net profit of said business, at which time the defendant was to purchase a one-half interest in the building, equipment and business for the sum of forty thousand dollars', said sum to be payable in installments; that in April, 1953 said oral agreement was orally changed so that said purchase of the building, equipment and business was to take effect January 1, 1955.
As a further defense defendant alleged that he 'relied upon certain statements made to defendant by plaintiff in December of 1950, April of 1953 and July of 1953, and changed his position in reliance thereon, and the plaintiff is estopped to now assert the provisions of Paragraph IV * * *.' Defendant further alleged that in October, 1954 he informed the plaintiff that he 'was ready, willing and able to carry out the agreement in existence between the parties, but the plaintiff then and thereafter refused to permit the defendant so to do.'
Upon the trial the court found the issues in favor of plaintiff and issued the injunction prayed for, but did not award plaintiff any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Irwin v. West End Development Company
...from asserting this defense are, General Accident Fire & Life Assur. Corp. v. Mitchell, 128 Colo. 11, 259 P.2d 862; Mabray v. Williams, 132 Colo. 523, 291 P.2d 677; Jacobs v. Perry, 135 Colo. 550, 313 P.2d 1008, and Crawford v. McLaughlin, 172 Colo. 366, 473 P.2d 725. Roy Vroom the presiden......
-
Republic Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. Red Lion Homes, Inc., 80-1738
...done [and] ... subject- [s] such person to loss or injury by disappointing the expectations on which he acted." Mabray v. Williams, 132 Colo. 523, 291 P.2d 677, 679 (1955). "[T]he doctrine of estoppel is not favored" in Colorado, University of Colorado v. Silverman, 192 Colo. 75, 555 P.2d 1......
-
Johnson v. Industrial Com'n of State of Colo., 86SC383
...of justice when a rigid and inflexible application of the law would otherwise result in an injustice. Mabray v. Williams, 132 Colo. 523, 527, 291 P.2d 677, 679 (1955); Sanger v. Larson Construction Co., 126 Colo. 479, 484, 251 P.2d 930, 933 (1952). There are four basic elements to a claim o......
-
Reddy v. Community Health Foundation of Man
...miles of city); Marshall v. Covington, 81 Idaho 199, 339 P.2d 504 (1959) (physician; 3 years and 25 miles from city); Mabray v. Williams, 132 Colo. 523, 291 P.2d 677 (1955) (5 years; within 50 miles of city); Andrews v. Cosgriff, 175 Minn. 431, 221 N.W. 642 (1928) (physician; 5 years and 25......
-
Covenants Not to Compete in the Sale of a Business: Protecting Goodwill
...Laws 232, 232. 41. See, e.g., Boulder Medical Ctr. v. Moore, 651 P.2d 464 (Colo.App. 1982); Angros, supra, note 14; Mabray v. Williams, 291 P.2d 677 (Colo. 42. Physician practices usually provide for interlocking employment contracts and shareholder/equityholder agreements. This reflects th......