Wilson v. Pigue

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Florida
Writing for the CourtAuthor: Chapman
Citation10 So.2d 561,151 Fla. 734
Decision Date10 November 1942
PartiesWILSON v. PIGUE.

10 So.2d 561

151 Fla. 734

WILSON
v.
PIGUE.

Florida Supreme Court

November 10, 1942


Rehearing Denied Dec. 16, 1942.

[151 Fla. 735] Appeal from Circuit Court, St. Johns County; George William Jackson, judge.

Frank D. Upchurch and E. Willard Howatt, both of St. Augustine, for appellant.

Dowda and Millican, of Palatka, for appellee.

CHAPMAN, Justice.

On October 30, 1939, John D. Pigue, for a consideration of $900, sold to E. H. Wilson his well drilling equipment and the business of drilling wells in St. [151 Fla. 736] Johns County, Florida, and covenanted not to engage in the well drilling business in St. Johns County, Florida, during the ten year period after October 30, 1939. The sales agreement, in part, provided:

'Also all the rights and interest of the said J. D. Piague, his heirs, executor or administrator in the business of drilling wells in St. Johns County, Florida, for the full term and period of ten years from the date of the making and executing of this Bill of Sale. It is understood that neither the said J. D. Piague, his heirs, assigns, executors or administrator, will engage in the business of drilling wells in St. Johns County, Florida, during this ten year period.'

In a suit to restrain Pigue from the violation of the aforesaid restrictive covenant, it was alleged that Pigue, in November, 1940, engaged in the well drilling business in St. Johns County, and was then engaged in drilling a well for one Gordon Middleton and threatens to continue to engage in the said business in contravention of his restrictive covenant. That the plaintiff had engaged for many years in drilling wells and by the re-entry of Pigue into the business will result in irreparable loss and injury if not restrained. The defendant Pigue admitted by answer the several allegations of the bill of complaint and represented that while he had worked for Mr. Middleton, another well driller, as a common laborer, he had not violated the aforesaid covenants. Testimony was heard by the Chancellor, who decided the equities of the cause in behalf of the defendant Pigue, and the plaintiff below perfected his appeal therefrom to this Court.

Counsel for appellant poses for adjudication by this Court, as the controlling factor presented on the record, the question viz.: Does the seller of well drilling [151 Fla. 737] equipment and 'the business of drilling wells' violate his covenant not to engage in 'the business of drilling wells in St. Johns County, Florida' by becoming an employee of another well driller, and as such soliciting well drilling business and superintending the drilling of wells in said county?

The case of Stewart & Bro. v. Stearns [10 So.2d 561] & Culver Lbr. Co., 56 Fla. 570, 48 So. 19,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 practice notes
  • Janet Realty Corp. v. Hoffman's, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • December 23, 1943
    ...Fla. 847, 136 So. 552; Love v. Miami Laundry Co., 118 Fla. 137, 160 So. 32; Ericson v. Jayette, 149 Fla. 82, 5 So.2d 453; Wilson v. Pigue, 151 Fla. 734, 10 So.2d 561. The facts in the case at bar can or may be distinguished from similar cases considered by this Court. We have here the owner......
  • Gribbel v. Henderson
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • November 10, 1942
    ...denying a writ of certiorari assumed that the motion to quash the return of substituted service of process upon the duly designated [151 Fla. 734] resident agent of the nonresident executor-trustee defendants under the statute, was denied by the trial judge upon the theory that such substit......
  • Rinker Materials Corp. of West Palm Beach v. Holloway Materials Corp., No. 4644
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • September 11, 1964
    ...guide through the maze of generalities and relative concepts referred to in the cases * * *.' [45 A.L.R.2d 101] In Wilson v. Pigue, 1942, 151 Fla. 734, 10 So.2d 561, our Supreme Court had before it a covenant not to compete which, in area and time, was similar to the one in the instant case......
  • Rinker Materials Corp. v. Holloway Materials Corp., Nos. 4644
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • May 21, 1965
    ...business must be struck down. In this connection, we feel that the test announced by the Florida Supreme Court in Wilson v. Pigue, 1942, 151 Fla. 734, 10 So.2d 561, although in the context of a covenant violation by acceptance of employment with a competitor, is the appropriate criterion by......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 cases
  • Janet Realty Corp. v. Hoffman's, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • December 23, 1943
    ...Fla. 847, 136 So. 552; Love v. Miami Laundry Co., 118 Fla. 137, 160 So. 32; Ericson v. Jayette, 149 Fla. 82, 5 So.2d 453; Wilson v. Pigue, 151 Fla. 734, 10 So.2d 561. The facts in the case at bar can or may be distinguished from similar cases considered by this Court. We have here the owner......
  • Gribbel v. Henderson
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • November 10, 1942
    ...denying a writ of certiorari assumed that the motion to quash the return of substituted service of process upon the duly designated [151 Fla. 734] resident agent of the nonresident executor-trustee defendants under the statute, was denied by the trial judge upon the theory that such substit......
  • Rinker Materials Corp. of West Palm Beach v. Holloway Materials Corp., No. 4644
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • September 11, 1964
    ...guide through the maze of generalities and relative concepts referred to in the cases * * *.' [45 A.L.R.2d 101] In Wilson v. Pigue, 1942, 151 Fla. 734, 10 So.2d 561, our Supreme Court had before it a covenant not to compete which, in area and time, was similar to the one in the instant case......
  • Rinker Materials Corp. v. Holloway Materials Corp., Nos. 4644
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • May 21, 1965
    ...business must be struck down. In this connection, we feel that the test announced by the Florida Supreme Court in Wilson v. Pigue, 1942, 151 Fla. 734, 10 So.2d 561, although in the context of a covenant violation by acceptance of employment with a competitor, is the appropriate criterion by......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT