Madson v. Johnson
| Decision Date | 18 January 1917 |
| Citation | 160 N.W. 1085,164 Wis. 612 |
| Parties | MADSON v. JOHNSON. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Outagamie County; Edgar V. Werner, Judge.
Action by William Madson against O. N. Johnson. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
This action is brought by the plaintiff to enjoin the defendant from continuing his practice of veterinary medicine and surgery in the city of Appleton and vicinity, and for the recovery of $1,000 as damages. Both plaintiff and defendant are licensed practitioners of veterinary medicine and surgery. The defendant was a successful practitioner at Appleton, Wis., and on March 31, 1914, he sold his real estate, office fixtures, and good will as such veterinarian to the plaintiff. The plaintiff paid the defendant $4,500 therefor, and received from defendant a bill of sale, conveying the property as agreed. The bill of sale contains the following provision:
“Further it includes my good will, and further that I will not practice veterinary medicine or surgery in Appleton, or vicinity, unless it would be to be in partnership with said Dr. William Madson, or to buy out the said above-mentioned Dr. William Madson.”
On or about March 10, 1915, the defendant again opened an office in the city of Appleton, Wis., and began the practice of veterinary medicine and surgery. The plaintiff brings this action, alleging a violation of the agreement, and asked that defendant be restrained from practicing his profession in Appleton or vicinity. The defendant demurred to the complaint, and the circuit court overruled the demurrer. From the order overruling the demurrer, this appeal is taken.Ryan, Cary & Frank, of Appleton, for appellant.
Morgan & Benton, of Appleton, for respondent.
SIEBECKER, J. (after stating the facts as above).
[1] It is well established that contracts imposing reasonable restraint upon the right to exercise one's calling, trade, or profession are valid. This doctrine has been applied and upheld in this state under the varying facts and circumstances disclosed by the following cases: Fairbank and Others v. Leary, 40 Wis. 637;Washburn v. Dosch, 68 Wis. 436, 32 N. W. 551, 60 Am. Rep. 873;Richards v. American Desk & Seating Co., 87 Wis. 503, 58 N. W. 787;Palmer v. Toms, 96 Wis. 367, 71 N. W. 654;Tecktonius v. Scott, 110 Wis. 441, 86 N. W. 672;Cottington v. Swan, 128 Wis. 321, 107 N. W. 336;My Laundry Co. v. Schmeling, 129 Wis. 597, 109 N. W. 540.
[2] The terms of the agreement of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. American Medical Ass'n
...Appeal, 58 Pa. 51; French v. Parker, 16 R.I. 219, 14 A. 870, 27 Am. St.Rep. 733; Butler v. Burleson, 16 Vt. 176; Madson v. Johnson, 164 Wis. 612, 160 N.W. 1085. 4 Footnote citations in the British report as (2) 1915 3 K.B. 556. (3) 1917 1 K.B. 305. (4) (1855) 6 E. & B. 47. (5) (1867) L.R. 2......
-
Jennings v. Shepherd Laundries Co.
...Civ. App.) 258 S. W. 856; Randolph v. Graham (Tex. Civ. App.) 254 S. W. 402; Legg v. Hood, 154 Ga. 28, 113 S. E. 642; Madson v. Johnson, 164 Wis. 612, 160 N. W. 1085; Heinz v. National Bank of Commerce, 237 F. 942, 150 C. C. A. 592; Dannel v. Sherman Transfer Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 211 S. W. ......
-
Reiman Associates, Inc. v. R/A Advertising, Inc.
...as valid covenants incidental to the sale of a business without time limitation in specified localities. Madson v. Johnson, 164 Wis. 612, 614, 160 N.W. 1085, 1086 (1917). Here, not only does the covenant contain a specific time limitation, but it is also limited to a specific publication, t......
-
Journal Co. v. Bundy
...321, 107 N.W. 336;My Laundry Co. v. Schmeling, 129 Wis. 597, 109 N.W. 540;Kradwell v. Thiesen, 131 Wis. 97, 111 N.W. 233;Madson v. Johnson, 164 Wis. 612, 160 N.W. 1085;Durbrow Commission Co. v. Donner, 201 Wis. 175, 229 N.W. 635;Wisconsin Ice & Coal Co. v. Lueth, 213 Wis. 42, 250 N.W. 819. ......