Shirk v. Loftis Bros. & Co.
Decision Date | 17 October 1918 |
Docket Number | 969. |
Citation | 97 S.E. 66,148 Ga. 500 |
Parties | SHIRK v. LOFTIS BROS. & CO. |
Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
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.
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) If the consideration be so grossly inadequate as to shock the conscience, and to amount in itself to evidence of fraud equity will not enforce the agreement.
Under the evidence in the record the judge of the superior court did not abuse his discretion in holding that the business conducted by the plaintiff in error was in violation of the restrictive covenants in his contract with the defendant in error, and in granting an interlocutory injunction.
Error from Superior Court, Fulton County; Geo. L. Bell, Judge.
Bill by Loftis Bros. & Co. against M. G. Shirk. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.
Evidence held to show that business conducted by an employee after leaving his former employment was in violation of his contract with his former employer, justifying an interlocutory injunction.
Some time prior to August, 1917, Loftis Bros. & Co., a corporation, purchased the business of the Banta-Cole Company at No. 5 South Broad street in the city of Atlanta. Prior to said sale the Banta-Cole Company was engaged in business of buying and selling, on the installment plan, jewelry watches, clocks, optical supplies, glassware, and articles of a similar nature. M. Grant Shirk was employed by the Banta-Cole Company as an optometrist, optician, and salesman. After the transfer of the business to Loftis Bros. & Co., he remained with that company, performing for it the same services but without written agreement, until August 20 1917, on which date he entered into a written contract with Loftis Bros. & Co. This contract recites that the corporation is engaged "in the business of selling diamonds jewelry, precious stones, clocks, watches, silverware, optical supplies, glassware, and other articles of a similar nature on installment, part payment, or credit plan," and that the business conducted by it "is of a peculiar nature and character, and its success depends upon certain methods of advertising and the use of certain systems, plans, and methods originated or used by" it, and that Shirk "has and will further become familiar with the said plans, methods, and systems of carrying on said business, * * * and will become possessed of secrets and confidential information pertaining to the various departments of said business, and has and will become personally acquainted with the customers and trade" of said corporation, and that the said Shirk, "in consideration of his employment, * * * is willing to agree to all the covenants and conditions of this contract, all of which it is understood and agreed are necessary to the protection of the business" of said corporation. The material covenants and conditions of the contract are as follows:
The contract was to remain in effect after August 15, 1918, until terminated by either party upon reasonable notice. The salary paid the employé before the execution of the contract was $25 per week, and his...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Shirk v. Eoftis Bros. & Co
...148 Ga. 50097 S.E. 66SHIRK.v.EOFTIS BROS. & CO.(No. 969.)Supreme Court of Georgia.Oct. 17, 1918.(Syllabus by the Court.)Error from Superior Court, Fulton County; Geo. L. Bell, Judge.Bill by Loftis Bros. & Co. against M. G. Shirk. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.Some time prior to August, 1917, Loftis Bros. & Co., a corporation, purchased the business of the Banta-Cole Company at No. 5 South Broad street in the city of Atlanta. Prior to said sale the ... ...
-
Noncompete Clauses in Georgia: an Economic Analysis
...supra note 1, at 1140; Kohn, supra note 2, at 652. 70. See Johnson v. Lee, 257 S.E.2d 273,275 (Ga. 1979); Shirk v. Loftis Bros. & Co., 97 S.E. 66, 68 (Ga. 1918); Rakestraw, 30 S.E. at 741. 71. See Kohn, supra note 2, at 673. 72. See Shirk, 97 S.E. at 68; Rakestraw, 30 S.E. at 741. 73. See K......