MacMartin v. Stevens

• Decision Date: 24 March 1905
• Citation: MacMartin v. Stevens, 37 Wash. 616, 79 P. 1099 (Wash. 1905)
• Parties: MacMARTIN et al. v. STEVENS et al.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

79 P. 1099

37 Wash. 616

MacMARTIN et al. v. STEVENS et al.

Supreme Court of Washington

March 24, 1905

Appeal from Superior Court, Pierce County; W. O. Chapman, Judge.

Suit by George E. MacMartin and others against George W. Stevens and another. From a judgment sustaining a general demurrer to the complaint and dismissing the action, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

H. H Johnston and T. W. Hammond, for appellants.

Campbell & Powell, for respondents.

DUNBAR J.

Action to enjoin interference with the customers of a laundry. A general demurrer to the complaint was sustained, and the action dismissed. Plaintiffs appeal.

The complaint alleges, in substance, that the plaintiffs were engaged in the laundry business in the city of Tacoma under the name of the Standard Steam Laundry; that the defendants George W. Stevens and Edith Moon, had at different times been copartners in said business, had sold their respective interests to the plaintiffs, and afterwards formed a partnership, leased a laundry plant known as the Cascade Steam Laundry, and started in at once to solicit customers from those of the plaintiffs. It is alleged, among other things, that they induced one of the drivers of plaintiffs to leave the Standard and enter the employment of the Cascade and thereafter drive over his old route and solicit the customers with whom he had become acquainted; that by this means they had succeeded in persuading many of the customers of the plaintiffs to deal with the Cascade Laundry instead of the Standard, and were engaged in persuading others to do the same thing; that, unless restrained by the court, they would continue to solicit the customers of the plaintiffs, and interfere with the business of the Standard Steam Laundry, to the irreparable injury of the plaintiffs. The acts are set forth more in detail, but we think this is sufficient to serve all purposes in discussing the case. The agreement of sale of defendant Edith Moon was entitled, 'Bill of sale,' and, after the formal portion of the article, proceeds as follows: 'Do by these presents grant, bargain, sell and convey unto the said party of the second part, his executors, administrators, and assigns, the following goods, chattels, and property, to wit an undivided half interest in and to the Standard Steam Laundry plant [describing it]; first parties' interest in and to any policy or policies of insurance on any of said plant or property making up same; one hydraulic washer now stored in this city at 15th and C streets; also four horses and three wagons, and harnesses; also all goods and merchandise or machinery in transit purchased by the Standard Steam Laundry. * * * The intention of first party, Edith Moon, * * * being by this bill of sale to sell and convey to second party all her interest in and to said Standard Steam Laundry and the personal property connected and used therewith, whether same is in the building or outside thereof, where said business is carried on, except her interest...