Wilson v. Pigue
| Decision Date | 10 November 1942 |
| Parties | WILSON v. PIGUE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Dec. 16, 1942.
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.
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. 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:
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 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 & Culver Lbr. Co., 56 Fla. 570, 48 So. 19, 26, 24 L.R.A.,N.S., 649, involved an alleged breach of a contract. The Lumber Company operated a saw mill and employed a great number of persons and leased its store building to Stewart Bros. for a period of three years and they agreed to carry a general stock of merchandise of a value of not less than $10,000, and the Lumber Company agreed not to engage in the mercantile business at this point for three years and agreed to use its influence to induce its employees to trade with Stewart Bros. Stewart Bros. sued the Lumber Company, alleging a breach of the contract, in that it failed to influence its employees to patronize plaintiffs' business. A demurrer was sustained to each count of the declaration and on appeal here was affirmed on the theory that the contract was violative of the public policy of the State in that it tended to create a monoply. The Court, in part, said:
'Where a contract in its terms and in its operation transfers from one party to another a lawful business, trade, or occupation actually engaged in, or a lawful exclusive right, and, as an incident thereto, it is agreed that the vendor will not for a reasonable time engage in the same or a similar business within a reasonable territory covered by the business, and such agreement does not unreasonably restrict the available supply of, or access to, or raise the price of any useful commodity, or tend to create a monoply, it may not be against public policy or unlawful, and consequently may be enforced by the courts if otherwise legal and binding.'
The case of Massari...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Janet Realty Corp. v. Hoffman's, Inc.
... ... 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 ... The facts in the ... case at bar can or may be distinguished from similar cases ... considered by this ... ...
- Gribbel v. Henderson
-
Rinker Materials Corp. of West Palm Beach v. Holloway Materials Corp., 4644
...or less mechanical guide through the maze of generalities and relative concepts referred to in the cases * * *.' 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 cas......
-
Rinker Materials Corp. v. Holloway Materials Corp.
...this 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 criteri......