Midland Lumber & Coal Co. v. Roessler
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin |
| Writing for the Court | OWEN |
| Citation | 233 N.W. 614,203 Wis. 129 |
| Decision Date | 09 December 1930 |
| Parties | MIDLAND LUMBER & COAL CO. v. ROESSLER. |
203 Wis. 129
233 N.W. 614
MIDLAND LUMBER & COAL CO.
v.
ROESSLER.
Supreme Court of Wisconsin.
Dec. 9, 1930.
Appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court for Clark County; Emery W. Crosby, Circuit Judge. Reversed.
Action commenced on the 15th day of October, 1929, by Midland Lumber & Coal Company, a corporation, plaintiff, against Otto Roessler, defendant, to restrain the defendant from breaching a contract not to engage in the lumber business within a radius of 10 miles of the city of Neillsville. From a judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant on the 31st day of May, 1930, the defendant appeals.
For a number of years prior to 1927 the defendant had been engaged in the retail lumber business at Neillsville, Wis. On the 6th day of January, 1927, defendant sold said business to one J. A. McCampbell. The contract of sale contained this provision: “The said Otto Roessler hereby agrees to turn over to the said J. A. McCampbell his successors and assigns the good will connected with this business and the said Otto Roessler further agrees for a period of ten (10) years from this date, he will not engage in the lumber business within a radius of ten (10) miles of the city of Neillsville, Wisconsin.”
On the 29th day of January, 1927, the plaintiff purchased from McCampbell all of the rights of said McCampbell under said contract of sale, since which time it has been operating the business formerly owned by Roessler at the city of Neillsville.
In June or July of 1928 the defendant established himself in the lumber business in the village of Chili, which is 12 1/2 miles from the city of Neillsville, on a straight line, and about 15 miles by the nearest highway. It is plaintiff's contention that, since the defendant established himself in said business in the village of Chili, he has breached his said agreement not to engage in the lumber business within 10 miles of the city of Neillsville in the following particulars: The defendant is a builder and contractor, and in July, 1928, he entered into a contract with one George Schoening, who lived 10 miles from the city of Neillsville, by which he agreed to build a house for said Schoening, the defendant furnishing all of the material for said building, and in accordance with said agreement the defendant built said building, furnishing all of the material therefor; that in the fall of 1928 the defendant similarly built a barn for one William Bistier, within said 10-mile radius, furnishing all of the material therefor; that in July, 1928, one Blackman, living in the city of Neillsville, went to the village of Chili and purchased some shingles from the defendant and requested the defendant to deliver said shingles at his home in the said city of Neillsville; that the defendant maintains a home in the said city of Neillsville, and usually leaves his place of business on Saturdays of each week and spends Sundays at his home in Neillsville; that the place of residence of said Blackman is on the usually traveled route of said defendant from Chili to Neillsville, and said defendant, at the request of Blackman, delivered such shingles to Blackman on one of defendant's trips to Neillsville; that in August of 1928 the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fiel v. City of Racine
...fully. The situation involved was one to which the turntable rule was applicable if adopted. It would seem that the court definitely [233 N.W. 614]and positively rejected the rule, considering it as restricted to structures or other things located wholly on private property. [3] However, we......
-
Fullerton Lumber Co. v. Torborg
...enjoining the employee from violating its terms.' Annotation, 52 A.L.R. 1364. Cases such as Midland Lumber & Coal Co. v. Roessler, 1930, 203 Wis. 129, 233 N.W. 614; Kradwell v. Thiesen, 1907, 131 Wis. 97, 111 N.W. 233; My Laundry Co. v. Schmeling, 1906, 129 Wis. 597, 109 N.W. 540, and Cotti......
-
Waters by Murphy v. U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co., No. 84-573
...that the presence of a deep hole in an otherwise shallow pond did not constitute an exceptional circumstance. Fiel, 203 Wis. at 157, 233 N.W. at 614. This case is similar. Since it is a common condition of outdoor bodies of water in the winter and spring, we cannot say that the logs created......
-
Checket-Columbia Co. v. Lipman, CHECKET-COLUMBIA
...area. Richards v. Shipley, 257 Pa. 134, 101 A. 456; Johnson v. Stumbo, 277 Ky. 301, 126 S.W.2d 165; Midland Lumber & Coal Co. v. Roessler, 203 Wis. 129, 233 N.W. 614; Foxworth-Galbraith Lumber Co. v. Turner, 121 Tex. 177, 46 S.W.2d 663, 87 A.L.R. Page 501 For example, in Sander v. Hoffman, ......
-
Fiel v. City of Racine
...fully. The situation involved was one to which the turntable rule was applicable if adopted. It would seem that the court definitely [233 N.W. 614]and positively rejected the rule, considering it as restricted to structures or other things located wholly on private property. [3] However, we......
-
Fullerton Lumber Co. v. Torborg
...enjoining the employee from violating its terms.' Annotation, 52 A.L.R. 1364. Cases such as Midland Lumber & Coal Co. v. Roessler, 1930, 203 Wis. 129, 233 N.W. 614; Kradwell v. Thiesen, 1907, 131 Wis. 97, 111 N.W. 233; My Laundry Co. v. Schmeling, 1906, 129 Wis. 597, 109 N.W. 540, and Cotti......
-
Waters by Murphy v. U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co., No. 84-573
...that the presence of a deep hole in an otherwise shallow pond did not constitute an exceptional circumstance. Fiel, 203 Wis. at 157, 233 N.W. at 614. This case is similar. Since it is a common condition of outdoor bodies of water in the winter and spring, we cannot say that the logs created......
-
Checket-Columbia Co. v. Lipman, CHECKET-COLUMBIA
...area. Richards v. Shipley, 257 Pa. 134, 101 A. 456; Johnson v. Stumbo, 277 Ky. 301, 126 S.W.2d 165; Midland Lumber & Coal Co. v. Roessler, 203 Wis. 129, 233 N.W. 614; Foxworth-Galbraith Lumber Co. v. Turner, 121 Tex. 177, 46 S.W.2d 663, 87 A.L.R. Page 501 For example, in Sander v. Hoffman, ......