Ogle v. Wright

• Decision Date: 09 March 1939
• Docket Number: 12583.
• Citation: 2 S.E.2d 72,187 Ga. 749
• Parties: OGLE v. WRIGHT et al.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

2 S.E.2d 72

187 Ga. 749

OGLE v. WRIGHT et al.

No. 12583.

Supreme Court of Georgia

March 9, 1939

H. H Wright had an established business of selling and distributing Pepsi-Cola (a beverage) by trucks over designated routes, in the City of Atlanta and vicinity. C. M Ogle was one of his salesmen and truck drivers who knew the routes, secrets of trade, and customers of Wright. A competing company, engaged in the same business on the same routes, employed several of Wright's employees. In these circumstances Wright required his salesmen and drivers including Ogle, at the peril of losing their jobs, to enter into written contracts of employment. The contract with Ogle was executed May 6, 1938. Two of the covenants in the contract with Ogle were 'that at no time during the term of his said employment, or for a period of six months immediately following the termination of his said employment will he for himself, or on behalf of any other person,' engage in such business 'within the incorporated limits of Atlanta and within a radius of fifty miles thereof,' and 'that said employment may be terminated by either party with or without cause upon giving five days notice to the other.' The stipulated wages were $10 per week, and Ogle was insolvent. In August, 1938, after five days' notice to Ogle, he was discharged, and a few days thereafter he entered into the same business in the same territory and on the same routes, under employment of the company competing with Wright. At an interlocutory hearing of a suit instituted by Wright against Ogle to enjoin him from engaging in such business under employment of the competing company, the evidence tended to make the case as stated above. The judge granted a temporary injunction, on terms that Wright give bond to indemnify Ogle for any damages that might be awarded on the final trial. Ogle excepted.

James W. Dorsey, of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.

John I. Kelley, Little, Powell, Reid & Goldstein, and James N. Frazer, all of Atlanta, for defendants in error.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court

ATKINSON Presiding Justice.

'1. An agreement in restraint of trade, ancillary to a contract of employment, supported by a valuable consideration, and limited as to both time and territory, and not otherwise unreasonable, is enforceable. 2. If the consideration for such an agreement be legal, it is sufficient; the adequacy of the consideration is a matter to be determined by the parties thereto. (a)...