Walker Coal & Ice Co. v. Love
| Decision Date | 07 January 1931 |
| Citation | 273 Mass. 564,174 N.E. 199 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
| Parties | WALKER COAL & ICE CO. v. LOVE. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Report from Superior Court, Worcester County; Hammond, Judge.
Bill in equity by the Walker Coal & Ice Company against Frank Love. From a decree dismissing the bill, plaintiff appeals.
Reversed and rendered.
J. Hannigan, of Boston, for appellant.
L. J. Croteau, of Worcester, for appellee.
This is a bill in equity to restrain the defendant from engaging directly or indirectly, either personally or as an employee, in any branch of the ice business within the city of Worcester for a period of five years from December 15, 1928, and for the assessment of damages.
The case was referred to a master who found the following facts: The plaintiff was a corporation with its principal place of business in Worcester, and had for a long time engaged in the ice business, largely of a retail character, in Worcester and vicinity and established a patronage in the locality of great value. On December 28, 1925, when the defendant was in the employ of the plaintiff as a driver, the parties executed a written agreement which provided in substance that in consideration of the employment of the defendant and weekly compensation then or thereafter to be granted either verbally or in writing by the employer, the employee agrees ‘that he will not for a period of five years after any termination of said employment engage directly or indirectly, either personally or as an employee in any branch of the ice business within the city or town in which said employee has worked for said employer.’ The defendant was requiredto sign the agreement as a condition of being retained in the employment. No fraud was used in securing the defendant's signature to the agreement and it was duly executed by both parties. After its execution the defendant continued to work for the plaintiff in the same capacity as theretofore, and at the same rate of compensation until about November 1, 1928, when it was reduced. During his entire employment he had at different times worked as a driver on routes known by six different numbers, all within the city of Worcester. The one covered by him during 1926, 1927 and until August 11, 1928, was known as route 617. On the date last mentioned, without complaint on his part, he was given work in an ice house of the company for a week or two and was then put on a route in the town of Millbury. He has performed no work for the plaintiff since December 13, 1928, and has not asked to be taken back. While employed by the plaintiff the defendant became well...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Love v. Miami Laundry Co.
... ... Fortcher et al., 116 Misc. 712, 191 N.Y.S. 409; ... Philadelphia Towel Supply & Laundry Co. v ... Weinstein, 57 Pa. Super. 290; Walker Coal & Ice Co ... v. Westerman, 263 Mass. 235, 160 N.E. 801; Walker ... Coal & Ice Co. v. Love, 273 Mass. 564, 174 N.E. 199; ... Bettinger v ... ...
-
Economy Grocery Stores Corp. v. McMenamy
... ... The amount of ... compensation to be paid was fixed by separate agreement ... Walker Coal & Ice Co. v. Love, 273 Mass. 564, 174 ... N.E. 199; Sherman v. Pfefferkorn, 241 Mass. 468, ... ...
-
Haysler v. Butterfield
... ... Sales & Machinery Co. v. Bleiler, supra; Garlichs Agency Co ... v. Anderson, supra; Walker Coal & Ice Co. v. Westerman, ... supra; Walker Coal & Ice Co. v. Love, 273 Mass. 564, ... 174 ... ...
-
All Stainless, Inc. v. Colby
...Bouley, 272 Mass. 67, 172 N.E. 104 (1930) (two year restriction in agreement terminable on one week's notice); Walker Coal & Ice Co. v. Love, 273 Mass. 564, 174 N.E. 199 (1931), and Southern New England Ice Co. v. Ferrero, 295 Mass. 446, 4 N.E.2d 359 (1936) (each involving a five year restr......