Samuel Stores, Inc. v. Abrams
Decision Date | 22 December 1919 |
Citation | 94 Conn. 248,108 A. 541 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | SAMUEL STORES, Inc., v. ABRAMS. |
Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Fairfield County; John J. Walsh Judge.
Action by the Samuel Stores, Incorporated, against Aaron H. Abrams. Demurrer to complaint sustained, and plaintiff appeals. No error.
Action for an injunction to restrain the defendant from conducting a clothing business in Bridgeport and from soliciting former and present customers of the plaintiff to trade with him, in alleged violation of a contract, brought to the court of common pleas for Fairfield county upon a complaint containing the following allegations:
Exhibit A recites that the defendant is engaged as manager for one year in one of its branch stores. Such other parts of Exhibit A as are essential are found in the opinion.
To this complaint the defendant filed a demurrer, pleading, among other grounds of demurrer, the following:
" An injunction against the defendant as prayed for would be mischievous and against public policy."
This demurrer the court of common pleas sustained; the plaintiff appealed.
John Keogh and John T. Dwyer, both of South Norwalk, for appellant.
Alexander L. De Laney, of Bridgeport, for appellee.
By the complaint and the contract, Exhibit A, attached thereto, the following facts are disclosed:
The plaintiff is a corporation of the state of New York engaged in conducting branch clothing stores in various cities.
It employed the defendant as manager of one of its branch stores for the period of one year from September 5, 1918, under the written contract attached to the complaint.
The contract contains the following stipulation on the part of the defendant:
The defendant in November, 1918, left the employ of the plaintiff, and on December 9, 1918, opened a store in Bridgeport, and engaged in the business of selling clothing for men, women, and children, and engaged in the same line of business conducted by the plaintiff in Bridgeport, and has advertised himself as formerly with the People's Store, the same being the trade-name under which the plaintiff has been conducting business in Bridgeport and the defendant has been and is soliciting the customers of the plaintiff to trade with him.
This case presents the question whether or not the restrictive stipulation in the contract between the parties is void as against public policy.
The public policy to be applied is the public policy of the present time. The changing conditions of life modify from time to time the reasons for determining whether the public interest requires that a restrictive stipulation shall be deemed void as against public policy. The following statement of the law found in the leading case of Maxim v. Nordenfeldt [1895] 11 The Reports, 27, is generally recognized as fundamental:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ultra-Life Laboratories v. Eames
... 221 S.W.2d 224 ... ULTRA-LIFE LABORATORIES, INC., RESPONDENT, ... L.W. EAMES, APPELLANT ... No. 21111 ... Kansas ... 2d 443; Clark Paper and Mfg. Co. v. Stenacher, 236 N.Y. 312; Samuel Stores Inc. v. Abrams, 94 Conn. 248. Numerous persons have for many years ... ...
-
Heder v. City of Two Rivers
...circumstances and conditions under which the contract is to be performed." Id. at 473, 246 N.W. 567 (quoting Samuel Stores, Inc. v. Abrams, 94 Conn. 248, 108 A. 541, 543 (1919)). Wisconsin later codified this common law rule, and enforces non-compete agreements as to "a specified territory ......
-
Saye v. Old Hill Partners, Inc.
...covenants between employers and employees are subject to stricter review than other types of contracts, see Samuel Stores, Inc., v. Abrams, 94 Conn. 248, 253, 108 A. 541 (1919) ("Under the law, restrictive stipulations in agreements between employer and employé [sic] are not viewed with the......
-
Ultra-Life Laboratories v. Eames
... 221 S.W.2d 224 240 Mo.App. 851 Ultra-Life Laboratories, Inc., Respondent, v. L. W. Eames, Appellant Court of Appeals of Missouri, ... Co. v. Stenacher, ... 236 N.Y. 312; Samuel Stores Inc. v. Abrams, 94 Conn ... 248. Numerous persons have for many ... ...