Sivley v. Cramer
| Decision Date | 21 April 1913 |
| Docket Number | 15,751 |
| Citation | 61 So. 653,105 Miss. 13 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | H. F. SIVLEY ET AL. v. N. A. CRAMER |
APPEAL from the circuit court of Neshoba county, HON. C. L. DOBBS Judge.
Suit by H. F. Sivley against N. A. Cramer. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals.
The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court.
Suggestion of error overruled.
E. B Cooper and J. R. Byrd, for appellant.
G. E Wilson, for appellees.
No brief of counsel on either side found in the record.
On and prior to the third day of April, 1907, H. F. Sivley and W. B. Sivley, Jr., under the firm name of Sivley & Co., were conducting a fire insurance agency at Newton, Newton county, Miss.; and J. D. King and N. A. Cramer were conducting a similar business at Philadelphia, Neshoba county, Miss. On April 3,1907, King & Cramer sold out their insurance agency to Sivley & Co. for the sum of one thousand, two hundred and fifty dollars, and agreed not to conduct together, separate, or apart or be interested in, any fire insurance agency in the town of Philadelphia, Miss., or in the counties of Newton, Neshoba, Leake, or Winston, for a period of ten years, without the consent of Sivley & Co. Afterwards, appellee, in violation of this contract, again established an insurance agency in the town of Philadelphia, and as the agent of several insurance companies began soliciting and writing insurance policies; whereupon this suit was instituted by appellants to recover from him damages for breaking his contract. After purchasing this agency, Sivley & Co. only conducted it for a short time, thereafter transacting all of their business from their office at Newton. At the close of the evidence for appellants the court on motion excluded it, and instructed the jury to find for appellee, and from a verdict and judgment accordingly this appeal is taken.
At a former day of this term the judgment of the court below was affirmed, and counsel for appellants now suggest and earnestly contend that we erred in so doing. One of the grounds of the motion to exclude is that "the contract sued upon is in violation of the antitrust laws of the state of Mississippi." In Cumberland Telephone Co. v. State, 100 Miss. 102, 54 So. 670, 39 L. R. A. (N. S.) 277, it was held that our antitrust statute "only intended to include within its provisions those contracts in restraint of trade, . . . that were invalid as against public policy before the enactment of the statute." It will therefore be necessary for us to ascertain what the common law is with reference to contracts of the character here under consideration.
Contracts whereby the parties thereto, or either of them, are restrained from engaging in business, have been divided into two classes: "First, those which are a part of a transaction involving the good will of a business which are designed to protect such good will, and to that end to restrain some person or persons from engaging in business; and, second, those which have for their primary object, not the protection of good will, but the formation of a monopoly in a given business." It will be observed that the contract here in question is of the first class, and what is herein said must be taken as referring alone to contracts of that character. When such contracts first began to come under the consideration of the courts, it was supposed, and so held, that any restraint upon a man's right to exercise his trade, calling, or profession, was against public policy and void; but later it began to be supposed, and to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Plaza Amusement Co. v. Rothenberg
... ... provisions contracts which were unlawful at common law, or ... against public policy. Sivley v. Cramer, 105 Miss. 13, 61 So ... 653, cited ... [159 ... Miss. 802] ... 10 ... LANDLORD AND TENANT ... That ... ...
-
Brown v. Staple Cotton Co-Operative Ass'n
... ... Y. & M. V. Railroad Co. v. Crawford, 107 Miss. 355, ... 65 So. 462; Railroad Co. v. Searles, 85 Miss. 520, ... 37 So. 939; Sivley v. Cramer, 105 Miss. 13, 61 So ... 652. "The courts must be left to determine what does or ... does not constitute a monopoly within the Code of ... ...
-
Aetna Ins. Co. v. Robertson
... ... 116, 54 So. 670, 39 L. R. A. (N. S.) ... 277; Railroad Co. v. Searles, 85 Miss. 520, 37 So. 938, 68 L ... R. A. 715; Siveley v. Cramer, 61 So. 653; Covington Stock ... Yards Co. v. Keith, 139 U.S. 128, 11 Sup. Ct. 469, 35 L. Ed ... 73; Railroad Company v. Searles, 85 Miss. 520; ... company that they were demanding that he either cancel or ... increase his rates ... Hamilton ... Sivley, a witness for appellee, testified that the only rates ... given him were the rates of the rating bureau, and that these ... rates were not ... ...
-
State ex rel. Knox, Atty. Gen. v. Edward Hines Lumber Co.
...competition. In the cases of Cumberland Telephone Co. v. State, 100 Miss. 102, 54 So. 670, 39 L. R. A. (N. S.) 277, Sivley v. Cramer, 105 Miss. 13, 61 So. 653, and Yazoo & M. V. Railroad Co. v. 107 Miss. 355, 65 So. 462, L. R. A. 1915C, 250, it was held that our anti-trust statute was "only......
-
Mississippi. Practice Text
...not inimical to the public welfare); Jackson , 105 So. at 539 (only unreasonable restraint of trade is condemned by law); Sivley v. Cramer, 61 So. 653, 654 (Miss. 1913) (validity of restraint of trade determined by reasonableness). 16. Wagley v. Colonial Baking Co., 45 So. 2d 717, 721 (Miss......