Philip G. Johnson & Co. v. Salmen
Decision Date | 02 April 1982 |
Docket Number | No. 44083,44083 |
Citation | 317 N.W.2d 900,211 Neb. 123 |
Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Parties | PHILIP G. JOHNSON & CO., a partnership, Appellant and Cross-Appellee, v. Robert S. SALMEN, Appellee and Cross-Appellant. |
1. Accounting: Equity. An action for an accounting may under one set of circumstances, find its remedy in an action at law and, under another, find it within the jurisdiction of equity.
2. Accounting: Equity. Where the intimate relationships of the parties are involved, an adequate remedy is available only within the equitable jurisdiction of the court.
3. Equity: Appeal and Error. In an action at equity, this court must review the record de novo and reach an independent conclusion without being influenced by the findings of the trial court; except, however, that where credible evidence is in conflict, we must give weight to the fact the trial court saw the witnesses and observed their demeanor while testifying.
4. Restrictive Covenants. Covenants not to compete, if reasonable, are enforceable. The considerations to be balanced are the degree of inequality in bargaining power; the risk of the covenantee losing customers; the extent of respective participation by the parties in securing and retaining customers; the good faith of the covenantee; the existence of sources or general knowledge pertaining to the identity of customers; the nature and extent of the business position held by the covenantor; the covenantor's training, health, education, and needs of his family; the current conditions of employment; the necessity of covenantor changing his calling or residence; and the correspondence of the restraint with the need for protecting the legitimate interests of the covenantee.
Sutter & Olson, Lincoln, for appellant and cross-appellee.
Fitzke & Langvardt, Hastings, for appellee and cross-appellant.
Heard before BOSLAUGH, McCOWN, WHITE, and CAPORALE, JJ., and FINN, D.J CAPORALE, Justice.
The plaintiff-appellant, Philip G. Johnson & Co. (Johnson), brought an action for an accounting and to recover damages from one of its former partners, Robert S. Salmen, the defendant-appellee. Salmen counterclaimed for damages and prejudgment interest.
Johnson appeals from the decree of the trial court which refused to enforce a restrictive covenant contained in the partnership agreement between it and Salmen. Salmen cross-appeals from that portion of the decree which denies him recovery of a share of the proceeds resulting from the sale of certain partnership assets and denies prejudgment interest.
Johnson urges, in summary, that the trial court erred in (1) refusing to enforce the restrictive covenant, (2) excluding certain testimony, and (3) awarding damages to Salmen. Salmen, on the other hand, urges the trial court erred in computing his damages and in refusing prejudgment interest.
An action for an accounting may, under one set of circumstances, find its remedy in an action at law and, under another, find it within the jurisdiction of equity. Where, as here, the intimate relationships of the parties are involved, an adequate remedy was available only within the equitable jurisdiction of the court. See, Cook v. Wilkie, 181 Neb. 596, 150 N.W.2d 124 (1967); Corn Belt Products Co. v. Mullins, 172 Neb. 561, 110 N.W.2d 845 (1961); Schmidt v. Henderson, 148 Neb. 343, 27 N.W.2d 396 (1947). Accordingly, we review the record de novo and reach an independent conclusion without being influenced by the findings of the trial court; except, however, that where credible evidence is in conflict, we must give weight to the fact the trial court saw the witnesses and observed their demeanor while testifying. Sturm v. Mau, 209 Neb. 865, 312 N.W.2d 272 (1981); Schmidt v. Henderson, supra.
Prior to becoming associated with Johnson, which engages in the practice of accounting, Salmen had practiced that profession in Grand Island as a sole practitioner for approximately a year. In the summer of 1969 Salmen merged his Grand Island practice with that of Johnson and moved to Hastings. Johnson has had offices in eight different Nebraska cities and has several clients who are now in a number of states.
A long period of negotiations ensued during which a number of proposals were made by Salmen and acceded to by Johnson. A partnership agreement between Johnson and Salmen was signed, effective July 1, 1975, which contains a restrictive covenant. It provides as follows:
Salmen withdrew from the partnership effective December 31, 1976. Following that departure he accepted professional employment from clients who were previously served by Johnson.
Prior to Salmen's withdrawal Johnson had reached an agreement, to be effective January 1, 1977, for the sale of its Scottsbluff office. Johnson also had a claim for insurance proceeds due to a fire loss, but it had not set the claim up as an asset, under its accrual method, by December 31, 1976. The value of Salmen's capital account, as computed by Johnson, was $21,502.57 plus $5,860 for Salmen's units of participation, or a total of $27,362.57. The trial court awarded Salmen $38,862.57, which included $3,500 as his share of the fire loss recovery and $8,000 as the value of his units of participation.
Appellant argues that the provision in question is not a covenant not to compete in that it does not purport to prohibit Salmen from entering the field of accounting, but merely obligates him to turn over the fees he earns from servicing certain clients during the 3 years following withdrawal...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Holloway v. Faw, Casson & Co.
...Rhoads v. Clifton, Gunderson & Co., 89 Ill.App.3d 751, 44 Ill.Dec. 914, 411 N.E.2d 1380 (1980); Philip G. Johnson & Co. v. Salmen, 211 Neb. 123, 127-28, 317 N.W.2d 900, 903 (1982); Smith, Batchelder & Rugg v. Foster, 119 N.H. 679, 406 A.2d 1310 (1979); McElreath v. Riquelmy, 444 S.W.2d 853 ......
-
Leon M. Reimer & Co., PC v. Cipolla
...(1980); Holloway v. Faw, Casson & Co., 319 Md. 324, 355, 572 A.2d 510, 514-15 (Sup. Ct.Md.1990); Philip G. Johnson & Co. v. Salmen, 211 Neb. 123, 127-28, 317 N.W.2d 900, 903 (Sup.Ct.Neb.1982); Smith, Batchelder & Rugg v. Foster, 119 N.H. 679, 683-84, 406 A.2d 1310, 1312-13 (Sup.Ct.N.H.1979)......
-
Weyh v. Gottsch
...(1987) ; Bolzer , supra note 31; Church of the Holy Spirit v. Bevco , 215 Neb. 299, 338 N.W.2d 601 (1983) ; Philip G. Johnson & Co. v. Salmen , 211 Neb. 123, 317 N.W.2d 900 (1982) ; Abbott v. Abbott , 188 Neb. 61, 195 N.W.2d 204 (1972).33 See, 1 Dan B. Dobbs, Dobbs Law of Remedies § 3.6(1) ......
-
Varney Business Services, Inc. v. Pottroff
...employers for services provided to former clients serve the same purpose as covenants not to compete. In Philip G. Johnson & Co. v. Salmen, 211 Neb. 123, 317 N.W.2d 900 (1982), the Nebraska Supreme Court recognized that a distinction between the two types of provisions is artificial and mea......
-
Dead or Alive? Territorial Restrictions in Covenants-not-to-compete in Nebraska
...(1977). 34. Brewer v. Tracy, 198 Neb. 503, 504, 253 N.W.2d 319, 320-21 (1977). 35. Brewer, 198 Neb. at 506, 253 N.W.2d at 322. 36. Id. 37. 211 Neb. 123, 317 N.W.2d 900 (1982). 38. Philip G. Johnson & Co. v. Salmen, 211 Neb. 123, 128, 317 N.W.2d 900, 903 (1982). 39. Johnson, 211 Neb. at 129,......
-
Dead or Alive? Territorial Restrictions in Covenants-not-to-compete in Nebraska
...(1977). 34. Brewer v. Tracy, 198 Neb. 503, 504, 253 N.W.2d 319, 320-21 (1977). 35. Brewer, 198 Neb. at 506, 253 N.W.2d at 322. 36. Id. 37. 211 Neb. 123, 317 N.W.2d 900 (1982). 38. Philip G. Johnson & Co. v. Salmen, 211 Neb. 123, 128, 317 N.W.2d 900, 903 (1982). 39. Johnson, 211 Neb. at 129,......
-
The Law of Intimate Work
...further explication of contracting and information deficits in the context of intimate work. 240. See Philip G. Johnson & Co. v. Salmen, 317 N.W.2d 900, 904 (Neb. 1982) (enumerating employer's loss of customers as a factor weighing in favor of enforcing non-compete agreement). 241. Mayne, 2......