Millward v. Gerstung Intern. Sport Ed., Inc., 228
| Court | Court of Appeals of Maryland |
| Writing for the Court | Argued before MURPHY; DIGGES |
| Citation | 268 Md. 483,302 A.2d 14 |
| Parties | Horace Douglas MILLWARD v. GERSTUNG INTERNATIONAL SPORT EDUCATION, INC. |
| Docket Number | No. 228,228 |
| Decision Date | 29 March 1973 |
Page 483
v.
GERSTUNG INTERNATIONAL SPORT EDUCATION, INC.
Page 484
Edward J. Angeletti, Baltimore, for appellant.
Philip O. Foard, Towson (Buckmaster, White, Mindel & Clarke, Towson, on the brief), for appellee.
Argued before MURPHY, C. J., and BARNES, McWILLIAMS, SINGLEY, SMITH, DIGGES and LEVINE, JJ.
DIGGES, Judge.
This is an appeal from an amended decree entered June 15, 1972 in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County by Judge John E. Raine, Jr. By that decree the appellant, Horace Douglas Millward, was enjoined until September 4, 1973 from engaging in Baltimore County in the operation of any summer camp, physical education or sports instruction for children. And, the injunction[302 A.2d 15] specifically referred to a camp operated by Sports Camps, Inc. This case began when the appellee, Gerstung International Sport Education, Inc. filed a bill of complaint seeking to enjoin Millward, who once worked for Gerstung, Inc., from engaging directly or indirectly in any competing business. The requested relief was sought because of an alleged violation of paragraph three of Millward's contract of employment which provided that:
'(Millward) also agrees that he will not for a period of two (2) years after the termination of this Agreement or any renewal period thereof, directly or indirectly, engage in the same or similar business, namely Gerstung Inter-Sport activities, physical education or sport instructions of any kind in the City of Baltimore or the surrounding counties where programs of the School are conducted, either individually or as
Page 485
a member of a firm or as a stockholder in a corporation. He further agrees never to solicit, directly or indirectly, divert or take away any of the patronage of the School.'The chancellor, after a full hearing, determined that this restriction was enforceable and Millward was in violation of the noncompetition covenant; he, therefore, granted the injunction. This appeal followed.
The evidence adduced at the hearing discloses that Gerstung, Inc., whose founder and president is Siegfried Gerstung, has for the last eight years operated for private elementary school children in the northern Baltimore County area a physical education program in winter and a day camp in summer. Appellee's program, as described by Mr. Gerstung, is the first in Maryland to introduce a European method of movement education. This method is basically an elementary school program. It initially stresses tumbling, gymnastics and swimming, rather than team sports, and emphasizes a child's awareness of his limbs, his body, and what they can do. This is followed by an introduction to the team sports as the child gets older.
Mr. Gerstung first met appellant in the spring of 1968 and because he felt that Millward's unique qualifications would make him an invaluable asset to the corporation, he was employed. Millward was considered ideal for a teaching and camp counselor position because of his past experiences and their publicity value. Appellant was well known in the Baltimore area since he had been much publicized as the coach for the now defunct professional soccer team, the Baltimore Bays, especially in 1967 when he coached his team to the championship of the Eastern Division of the league. Because of this, Gerstung, Inc. issued numerous promotional and press releases to advertise Millward's association with the corporation. In addition to his ability as a soccer player and coach, Millward is a qualified instructor of tennis, cricket, swimming and life saving.
Page 486
Appellant began work for Gerstung, Inc. in 1968, without a written contract, as a camp counselor in summer and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Holloway v. Faw, Casson & Co., 228
...if that, on its face, is not too broad, the facts and circumstances of each case must be examined." Millward v. Gerstung Int'l Sports, 268 Md. 483, 488, 302 A.2d 14 (1973) (citing Becker v. Bailey, 268 Md. 93, 299 A.2d 835 (1973)). In making such an examination some of the factors which the......
-
Holloway v. Faw, Casson & Co., 44
...The enforceability of a covenant not to compete depends on the facts of a given case. See Millward v. Gerstung Int'l Sports Educ., Inc., 268 Md. 483, 488, 302 A.2d 14, 16 (1973); Ruhl v. F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Co., 245 Md. 118, 123-24, 225 A.2d 288, 291 (1967). In Maryland, as in most ju......
-
Waypoint Mgmt. Consulting v. Krone, Civil Action ELH-19-2988
...must [also] be examined.” Becker v. Bailey, 268 Md. 93, 97, 299 A.2d 835, 838 (1973); accord Millward v. Gerstung Int's Sport Educ., Inc., 268 Md. 483, 488, 302 A.2d 14, 16 (1973). Under Maryland law, there are four requirements that must be met to enforce a restrictive covenant. Medispec, ......
-
Webb Mason, Inc. v. Video Plus Print Solutions, Inc., Civil Action No. ELH-17-3016
...must [also] be examined." Becker v. Bailey, 268 Md. 93, 97, 299 A.2d 835, 838 (1973); accord Millward v. Gerstung Int's Sport Educ., Inc., 268 Md. 483, 488, 302 A.2d 14, 16 (1973). As to duration, "Maryland has consistently upheld two year limitations on employment with competitors as reaso......