Northeast Ga. Artificial Breeders Ass'n v. Brown, 18056
| Decision Date | 09 February 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 18056,18056 |
| Citation | 74 S.E.2d 660,209 Ga. 547 |
| Parties | NORTHEAST GEORGIA ARTIFICIAL BREEDERS ASS'N, Inc. v. BROWN. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
A. S. Skelton and Carey Skelton, Hartwell, Clete D. Johnson and Linton S. Johnson, Royston, B. D. Murphy, Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
George L. Goode, Toccoa, and Carter Goode, Atlanta, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court.
1. Under the provisions of Code Ann.Supp. § 22-1881, that 'A corporation not organized for pecuniary gain or profit and without capital stock, shall be incorporated under the 1938 Act, the same as a business corporation', and the Corporation Act of 1938, as amended, Code Ann.Supp. § 22-1828, that a corporation organized under that act shall have authority 'To exercise any and all powers stipulated in its charter not contrary to the Constitution and laws of the United States and of the State of Georgia', the charter of the Northeast Georgia Artificial Breeders Association, Inc., organized in accordance with the 'Cooperative Marketing Act' as amended, Code Ann.Supp. § 65-201 et seq., authorizing it to engage in artificial breeding of livestock, is not void and of no effect, and the corporation was not without authority to engage in such business, or to employ and contract with agents to carry on the business of artificially inseminating cattle, since its charter expressly conferred upon it the power to do so 2. The restrictive covenant of the contract entered into between the corporation and its employee, whereby the latter agreed that, 'While employed under this agreement, and any extension or renewal thereof, and for a period of two years after the termination of such employment, the Technician shall not, either on his own account, or as an employee, agent, salesman, or representative of any other person or organization, or otherwise, in the (Counties) of Hart, Franklin, Stephens, Banks, Madison, Elbert, State of Georgia, artificially inseminate dairy cattle, or take orders for, or promote the artificial insemination of dairy cattle, with semen other than such as furnished him by or through or with the permission of the employer,' is reasonably limited as to time and territory, is not otherwise unreasonable, and is not void. Burdine v. Brooks, 206 Ga. 12, 55 S.E.2d 605; Kirshbaum v. Jones, 206 Ga. 192, 56 S.E.2d 484. The fact that the defendant's contract of employment provided that his work would be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Prentice v. Rowe
...reasonably so, both as to time and as to area. Haysler v. Butterfield, 240 Mo.App. 733, 218 S.W.2d 129; Northeast Georgia Artificial Breeders Ass'n v. Brown, 209 Ga. 547, 74 S.E.2d 660; annotation 43 A.L.R.2d 94; annotation 41 A.L.R.2d 15. It is true that, as Rowe emphasizes, neither ABS no......
-
W.R. Grace & Co., Dearborn Div. v. Mouyal
...265 (1979). See also Rollins Protective Serv. v. Palermo, supra, and Wiley v. Royal Cup, supra. But see NE Ga. Artificial Breeders Assoc. v. Brown, 209 Ga. 547(2), 74 S.E.2d 660 (1953). A restriction relating to the area where the employee did business on behalf of the employer has been enf......
-
Aladdin, Inc. v. Krasnoff
...(Shirk v. Loftis Bros. & Co., 148 Ga. 500, 97 S.E. 66; Nelson v. Woods, 205 Ga. 295, 53 S.E.2d 227; Northeast Georgia Artificial Breeders Ass'n v. Brown, 209 Ga. 547, 74 S.E.2d 660; Breed v. National Credit Ass'n, 211 Ga. 629, 88 S.E.2d 15); and the limitation as to area, '* * * accounts in......
-
Vann v. Billingsley
...is nothing to review on appeal where no ruling has been made by the trial court on a motion. See Northeast Ga. Artificial Breeders Assn. v. Brown, 209 Ga. 547-548(3), 74 S.E.2d 660 (1953). Moreover, even if the failure to rule on the summary judgment motion were appealable, Vann has failed ......
-
The Duty of Residential Real Estate Brokers and Salespersons to Disclose Property Condition to Buyers
...132 Conn. 229. 44. Papile, 4 Conn. Cir. Ct., at 312 citing Egan v. Hudson Nut Products, Inc., 142 Conn. 344, 348, and Hays v. McGinness, 209 Ga. 547 45. 142 Conn. 218, 113 A. 2d 136 (1955). 46. Id. at 225. 47. Id. at 224. 48. Id. at 225. 49. Id. at 226. 50. Id. at 223. citing 3 POMEROY, EQU......