Royer Wheel Co. v. Miller

• Decision Date: 21 March 1899
• Citation: Royer Wheel Co. v. Miller, 50 S.W. 62 (Ky. Ct. App. 1899)
• Parties: ROYER WHEEL CO. v. MILLER. [1]
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

50 S.W. 62

ROYER WHEEL CO. v. MILLER. ^[1]

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

March 21, 1899

Appeal from circuit court, Marion county.

"Not to be officially reported."

Action by J. W. Miller against the Royer Wheel Company to enjoin defendant from engaging in the sale of merchandise. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

S. A Russell, for appellant.

H. W. &amp R. C. Rives, for appellee.

HOBSON J.

On June 14, 1894, the Commercial Club of Lebanon, a voluntary association composed of the business men of the city, made a contract with appellant to remove its entire manufacturing plant, then at Campbellsville, and locate it at Lebanon within 12 months. It was stipulated that appellant would conduct at Lebanon, for a period of 10 years, the same manufacturing business then conducted at Campbellsville; that appellant should not have a store or engage in the sale of merchandise in Lebanon, except of the products of its own factories; and, in consideration of the above, the Lebanon merchants conveyed to appellant 10 acres of land in the suburbs of the city, paid it in cash $5,000, secured it exemption, so far as the charter would allow, from municipal taxation for five years, and had the waterworks company extend its mains to the premises, and furnish, free of expense, a hydrant and water sufficient for fire protection. After this had all been done, when the manufacturing plant was located at Lebanon, appellant engaged in the sale of bicycles not of its own manufacture. Appellee, a merchant of Lebanon, and one of the subscribers to the $5,000 fund, who was also engaged in selling bicycles, brought this suit under the contract, to enjoin appellant from engaging in the sale of merchandise in Lebanon. The court below perpetuated the injunction, and referred the question of damages to the jury, who returned a verdict against appellant for $150.

The chief contention on this appeal is that the written contract fails to express the real agreement between the parties from a mistake of the draftsman. Appellant alleges, and proves by several witnesses, that the commercial club made it a proposition, some days before the written contract was drawn up, in which it was stipulated that appellant should not sell groceries, dry goods, or general merchandise in Lebanon, and that it supposed when the written contract was signed that it conveyed the same meaning, and that appellant would not have signed...