Wooten v. Harris
| Decision Date | 21 September 1910 |
| Citation | 68 S.E. 898,153 N.C. 43 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | WOOTEN v. HARRIS. |
1. Partnership (§ 230*)—Sale of Good Will —Agreement to Protect.
An agreement by an outgoing partner not to re-engage in business in or adjacent to the same town in support of a contract for the sale of his interest need not be in writing.
(Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Partnership, Dec. Dig. § 230. *1
2. Partnership (§ 230*)—Good Will—Agreement Not to Re-engage in Business—Definiteness.
An out-going partner's agreement not to reengage in a competing business in F. or near enough thereto to interfere with plaintiffs business was not too indefinite, at least so far as to prevent his re-engaging in business in F.
fEd. Note.—For other cases, see Partnership, Cent. Dig. § 477 1/2; Dec. Dig. § 230.*]
3. Contracts (§ 117*)—Good Will—Agreement Not to Re-engage in Business— Time—Limitation.
An agreement by an outgoing partner not to re-engage in business in F., or near enough thereto to interfere with plaintiff's business, without limitation as to time, was valid for the time during which plaintiff was engaged in business at that place during his life.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Contracts, Cent. Dig. §§ 554-569; Dec. Dig. § 117.*]
4. Monopolies (§ 12*)—Sale op Good Will-Agreement Not to Re-engage in Business—Statutes.
A provision of an agreement for the sale of a partner's interest that he would not again engage in the mercantile business in F. or near enough thereto to interfere with plaintiff's business was not in violation of Pub. Laws 1907, c. 218, § 1, subd. "e, " prohibiting any person, firm, corporation, or association engaged in buying or selling anything of value in North Carolina to make an agreement, express or implied, with any other person, firm, corporation, or association not to buy or sell such things of value within certain territorial limits within the state with the intention of preventing competition in selling, or to fix the price, or prevent competition in buying.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Monopolies, Cent. Dig. § 10; Dec. Dig. § 12.*]
5. Contracts (§ 117*)—Sale of Good WillContract Not to Re-engage in Business. Where an out-going partner sold his interest in a general village store to plaintiff, and agreed not to re-engage in mercantile business in the same town, or near enough thereto to interfere with plaintiffs business, and such contract was reasonable in its scope and as to duration and territory and was not shown to be one of many similar contracts tending to engross that particular business in the territory, it was not invalid as tending to create a monopoly.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Contracts, Cent. Dig. §§ 554-569; Dec. Dig. § 117.*]
Appeal from Superior Court, Pitt County; Gulon, Judge.
Action by K. R. Wooten against R. E. Harris. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed.
Moore & Long, for appellant
Harry Skinner, for appellee.
The complaint alleges that the plaintiff bought out the defendant, who was his partner in general mercantile business in the town of Falkland, including the defendant's interest in the "good will" of the business, and, to secure the latter whose purchase was an inducement to the contract, the defendant contracted verbally with plaintiff that he would not again engage in the mercantile business in the town of Falkland, or near enough thereto to interfere with plaintiff's business. The defendant denied the agreement, but, before the jury had decided the issue, his honor announced that he would nonsuit the plaintiff.
This action the defendant contends should be sustained: (1) Because the alleged agreement was not in writing. We know of no authority requiring this. (2) Because the territory "in the town of Falkland or near enough thereto to interfere with plaintiff's business" is too indefinite. If this were true as to any place outside of the town, the expression "in the town of Falkland" is definite enough, and the averment is that the defendant had started his new business within the town and in a few feet of the store in whose business he had sold his interest and his share in the "good will." In Kramer v. Old, 119 N. C. 1, 25 S. E. 813, 34 L. R. A. 389, 56 Am. St. Rep. 650, the expression "in the vicinity of Elizabeth City" was held good at least as to Elizabeth City. In Hauser v. Harding, 126 N. C. 295, 35 S. E. 586, the territory was "the town of Yadkinville and the territory surrounding." This was held an agreement valid within the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Welcome Wagon Intern., Inc. v. Pender, 599
...427; Hauser v. Harding, supra; Jolly v. Brady, 127 N.C. 142, 37 S.E. 153; Anders v. Gardner, 151 N.C. 604, 66 S.E. 665; Wooten v. Harris, 153 N.C. 43, 68 S.E. 898; Faust v. Rohr, 166 N.C. 187, 81 S.E. 1096; Morehead Sea Food Co. v. Way, 169 N.C. 679, 86 S.E. 603; Bradshaw v. Millikin, 173 N......
-
Jewel Box Stores Corp. v. Morrow, 687
...v. Old, supra 119 N.C. at 8--9, 25 S.E. at 813--814. Accord, Beam v. Rutledge, supra; Morehead Sea Food Co. v. Way, supra; Wooten v. Harris, 153 N.C. 43, 68 S.E. 898. See Breckenridge, Restraint of Trade in North Carolina, 7 N.C.L.Rev. 249 The reasonableness of a restraining covenant is a m......
-
Welcome Wagon v. Morris, 7000.
...by counsel for Welcome Wagon that militates against this view. See, Moskin Bros. v. Swartzberg, 199 N.C. 539, 155 S.E. 154; Wooten v. Harris, 153 N.C. 43, 68 S.E. 898; Hauser v. Harding, 126 N.C. 295, 35 S.E. 586. See, also, Briggs Co. v. Mason, 217 Ky. 269, 289 S.W. 295, 52 A.L.R. 1344; 17......
-
Moskin Bros., Inc. v. Swartzberg
... ... 161, L. R. A. 1917E, 880; Morehead Sea Food Co. v ... Way, 169 N.C. 679, 86 S.E. 603, 604; Faust v ... Rohr, 166 N.C. 187, 81 S.E. 1096; Wooten v ... Harris, 153 N.C. 43, 68 S.E. 898; Anders v ... Gardner, 151 N.C. 604, 66 S.E. 665; Disosway v ... Edwards, 134 N.C. 254, 46 S.E. 501; ... ...