United Loan Corp. of Tampa v. Weddle
| Decision Date | 28 January 1955 |
| Citation | 77 So.2d 629 |
| Parties | UNITED LOAN CORPORATION OF TAMPA, a Florida Corporation, Appellant, v. Howard E. WEDDLE and M. A. C. Credit Co., Inc., a Florida Corporation, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Robert H. Carlton, Tampa, for appellant.
James S. Welch and Leonard C. Carter, Lakeland, for appellees.
Affirmed.
The appellee, Weddle, entered into an employment contract with the State Loan and Finance Corporation and its subsidiary, City Finance Service, Inc., small loan companies chartered under the laws of Florida, whereby Weddle was employed as manager of their office at Tampa at a monthly salary of $425. This contract was dated the 25th day of April, 1952 and in it contained a provision that either Weddle or the employer could terminate the contract by giving five days written notice to the other but if the employer terminated it, except for cause, that Weddle would be entitled to be paid a month's salary. It was agreed in the contract that Weddle would be faithful and loyal in the performance of his duties and would diligently promote the interests of his employer and would not 'disclose any facts with reference to the business of the company * * *' and would 'keep secret from every person, firm or corporation the names of past, present and prospective borrowers, security holders and all other business customers and associates of the company.' In addition to that he agreed to a provision in the contract, which is the nub of this litigation, and reads as follows:
'H.E. Weddle further agrees that for a period of two years after the termination of his employment for any reason that he will not engage in any way directly or indirectly in any business competitive with the company's business nor solicit or in any other way or manner work for and assist any competitive business in the city of Tampa, Florida or within fifteen miles of the city limits of said city as these limits exist on the date of this agreement.'
Weddle resigned from his employment on July 21, 1953 and entered the employment of the M. A. C. Credit Co., Inc., a competing small loan company, whereupon action was instituted in the lower court to enjoin Weddle from violating the contract and for other relief.
The lower court, after taking testimony, refused to enjoin the breach of the contract being of the opinion that the case was governed by the holding of this court in Love v. Miami Laundry Company, 118 Fla. 137, 160 So. 32, 34, wherein this Court refused to exercise its equitable powers of injunction against truck drivers previously employed by Miami Laundry under contracts of employment somewhat similar to the one here under scrutiny.
I hold the view that the lower court clearly misconceived the true holding in the above case and was in error in holding that the instant case is governed by the holding of this Court in that case. In the first place, the holding of this Court in Love v. Miami Laundry Company, supra, both in the original opinion and on rehearing was summed us in the statement which appears therein:
'it is not necessary that we hold the contract to be invalid as in contravention of subdivision 1 of section 5723, R.G.S., section 7948 C.G.L. (F.S.A. § 542.05), but it is sufficient to say that equity should withhold injunctive relief which is sought for the purpose of coercing specific performance of such contract.'
There is vast factual difference between the type of employment in the Miami Laundry case, supra, and in the instant case. In the former instance, the employees covered by the contract were numerous and their employment covered a designated area or route. The responsibility of the position and the importance of it to the laundry was not of the same category as that of the manager of this loan company in the instant case. Moreover, the loan market was vastly different in 1932 than in 1952. In the later case of Thompson v. Shell Petroleum Corporation, 130 Fla. 652, 178 So. 413, 418, 117 A.L.R. 248, we had occasion to discuss the principles laid down in Love v. Miami Laundry Company as it applied to the situation presented in that case. In this latter case, this Court said in speaking through the late Justice Brown:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Flammer v. Patton
...unfairly discriminated against sound business practices. Note the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Drew in United Loan Corporation of Tampa v. Weddle, 77 So.2d 629 (Fla.1955). Employers seeking to temper the immediate impact of a former employee's potential competitive advantage found that......
-
Atlas Travel Service, Inc. v. Morelly, A-75
...by injunction.' An interesting discussion of the statute is found in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Drew in United Loan Corp. of Tampa v. Weddle, Fla., 77 So.2d 629. The courts are not concerned with the wisdom of statutory law, and one that expressly or by implication supersedes the......