U-Haul Co. of N. C., Inc. v. Jones, U-HAUL
| Citation | 269 N.C. 284,152 S.E.2d 65 |
| Decision Date | 20 January 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 277,U-HAUL,277 |
| Parties | COMPANY OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. v. Ivey G. JONES, d/b/a Jones Esso Service Station. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina |
Plumides & Plumides, by Jerry W. Whitley, Charlotte, for plaintiff.
Richard A. Cohan, Charlotte, for defendant.
Ordinarily, a temporary injunction will be granted pending trial on the merits (1) if there is probable cause for supposing that plaintiff will be able to sustain his primary equity, and (2) if there is reasonable apprehension of irreparable loss unless injunctive relief be granted, or if in the court's opinion it appears reasonably necessary to protect plaintiff's rights until the controversy between him and defendant can be determined. Western Conference of Original Free Will Baptists, etc. v. Creech and Western Conference of Original Free Will Baptists, etc. v. Milles and Teasley v. Creech, 256 N.C. 128, 123 S.E.2d 619; 2 Strong, N.C.Index, Injunctions § 13 (Supp.).
Plaintiff's affidavit makes out a prima facie showing of its right to the final injunctive relief sought. According to the uncontradicted evidence, plaintiff terminated defendant's contract for cause. Defendant's covenant not to compete after such a termination was (1) in writing, (2) entered into at the time and as a part of the original contract of employment, (3) based on a valuable consideration, (4) reasonable both as to the time and territory embraced in the restrictions, (5) fair to the parties, and (6) not against public policy. It, therefore, meets all the requirements for a valid restrictive covenant. Orkin Exterminating Co. of Raleigh v. Griffin and Orkin Exterminating Co. of Raleigh v. Jones, 258 N.C. 179, 128 S.E.2d 139; Asheville Associates, Inc. v. Miller and Asheville Associates, Inc. v. Berman, 255 N.C. 400, 121 S.E.2d 593. See Annot., Employee--Restrictive Covenant--Time, 41 A.L.R.2d 15, 179 (1955). Considering the nature of plaintiff's business, defendant's agreement that, when his contract was terminated, he would not compete during the time the current telephone directory was in effect, plus a period of one year thereafter, is a reasonable time limitation. We may take judicial notice that (1) it is the custom of telephone companies annually to issue revised directories of their subscribers, and (2) an uninformed person desiring to rent a trailer would probably turn to the yellow pages index of the telephone directory to ascertain where one could be obtained. Stansbury, N.C. Evidence, §§ 11, 14...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
A.E.P. Industries, Inc. v. McClure
...3. Based on reasonable consideration. 4. Reasonable both as to time and territory. 5. Not against public policy. U-Haul Co. v. Jones, 269 N.C. 284, 152 S.E.2d 65 (1967); Exterminating Co. v. Griffin and Exterminating Co. v. Jones, 258 N.C. 179, 128 S.E.2d 139 (1962); Asheville Associates v.......
-
State ex rel. Edmisten v. J. C. Penney Co., Inc.
...practiced or commonly known to exist." Furniture Co. v. Express Co., 144 N.C. 639, 57 S.E. 458 (1907); accord, U-Haul Co. v. Jones, 269 N.C. 284, 152 S.E.2d 65 (1967); Lichtenfels v. Bank, 260 N.C. 146, 132 S.E.2d 360 (1963); Comrs. v. Prudden, 180 N.C. 496, 105 S.E. 7 (1920); c. f. Ocean A......
-
Pac. Kidney & Hypertension, LLC v. Kassakian
...damages clause in the parties' agreement does not obviate [the plaintiff's] right to injunctive relief.”); U – Haul Co. of N.C. v. Jones , 269 N.C. 284, 287, 152 S.E.2d 65 (1967) (“The mere insertion in the contract of a clause describing the sum to be recovered for a breach as liquidated d......
-
Woods v. Beazer Homes Corp.
...damages and contract termination. Our conclusion is supported by the decision of our Supreme Court in U-Haul Co. of North Carolina, Inc. v. Jones, 269 N.C. 284, 152 S.E.2d 65 (1967). In U-Haul, the contract between U-Haul and the dealer, Jones, provided that either party could terminate the......