Moore v. Snodgress
| Decision Date | 18 July 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 33562,33562 |
| Citation | 223 P.2d 1080,203 Okla. 572 |
| Parties | MOORE v. SNODGRESS. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Under the statutes of Oklahoma there is no restriction upon a licensed optometrist entering into a partnership contract to engage in the optical business with one not so licensed.
2. Where a licensed optometrist has entered into a partnership to engage in the optical business, wherein he agreed that he would not practice optometry within a radius of one and one-half miles of the business location of the partnership should he withdraw from the same, such contract is valid and is not in restraint of trade.
Butler & Rinehart, of Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.
Tom W. Garrett, of Oklahoma City, for defendant in error.
The parties occupy the same positions as they did in the court below and will be referred to here as there. The plaintiff inherited from her deceased husband the ownership of the Moore Optical Company, located at 211 West Commerce Street in that section of Oklahoma City known as Capitol Hill. Her husband had been a licensed optometrist during his lifetime; she was not. She entered into a contract with the defendant, who was a licensed optometrist, on May 19, 1942, wherein she sold him a half interest in the optical company for $6,000, payable at the rate of $50 a month. The defendant could pay all of the purchase price or any of the amount remaining due on the monthly payment date. The defendant agreed that should he withdraw from the partnership or breach the contract, he would not practice his profession as an optometrist within a radius of one and one-half miles of 211 West Commerce Street. The defendant left the Moore Optical Company and set up a competing business and carried on his occupation of optometry within a mile and a half of 211 West Commerce Street in Oklahoma City. The plaintiff filed suit to dissolve the partnership and restrain the defendant from carrying on his profession in the area designated by the contract. The trial court sustained a demurrer to her petition, and she elected to stand on her petition, and the case was dismissed. From that action she appealed.
Was this contract valid? The practice of optometry in Oklahoma is regulated by the statutes, and unless there is something in the statutes which prohibits such a contract, it must be upheld. We have studied Ch. 13 of Title 59, O.S.1941, 59 O.S.1941 § 581 et seq., which deals with optometry, and find nothing that would justify a holding that a licensed optometrist could not make a contract with someone not an optometrist to carry on an optical business; and we know of no reason why such business could not be carried on without a licensed optometrist. In many ways the situation here is comparable to a registered pharmacist engaging in the drug business with someone who is not registered. We have found no case saying that a contract of partnership so...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Akey v. Murphy
...3 P.2d 720; Wall v. Chapman, Okla.1921, 84 Okl. 114, 202 P. 303; Threlkeld v. Steward, 1909, 24 Okl. 403, 103 P. 630; Moore v. Snodgress, 1950, 203 Okl. 572, 223 P.2d 1080. See also Brown v. Stough, Okl.1956, 292 P.2d 176 (decided after Florida adopted a similar statute in 1953) pointing ou......
-
Brown v. Stough
...173 Okl. 99, 46 P.2d 530; Herrington v. Hackler, 181 Okl. 396, 74 P.2d 388; Clare v. Palmer, 201 Okl. 186, 203 P.2d 426; Moore v. Snodgress, 203 Okl. 572, 223 P.2d 1080; Griffin v. Hunt, Okl., 268 P.2d 874. The case of Herrington v. Hackler, supra, is more nearly analogous to the case at ba......
-
Akey v. Murphy
...720 (1931); Wall v. Chapman, 84 Okl. 114, 202 P. 303 (1921); Threlkeld v. Steward, 24 Okl. 403, 103 P. 630 (1909); Moore v. Snodgress, 203 Okl. 572, 223 P.2d 1080 (1950). See also a case decided after the enactment in 1953 of § 542.12, Brown v. Stough, 292 P.2d 176 (Okl.1956).5 Gray v. Stan......
- Putnam v. Oklahoma City