Summary
In Owl Laundry Co. v. Banks, 83 N.J. 230, 89 A. 1055, it was in effect said that both the American and English courts until recently have enforced the promise, but only as to those parts which the courts consider reasonable.
Summary of this case from McAnally v. PersonOpinion
02-13-1914
OWL LAUNDRY CO. v. BANKS.
James C. Agnew, of Town of Union, for complainant, William B. Stites, of Hoboken, for defendant.
Bill for injunction by the Owl Laundry Company against Victor J. Banks. Injunction granted.
James C. Agnew, of Town of Union, for complainant, William B. Stites, of Hoboken, for defendant.
BACKES, V. C. The complainant is engaged in carrying on the wet wash or laundry business in the town of Union, Hudson county. The defendant was employed by it from May 11, 1912, to August 14, 1913, as a solicitor of orders for wet wash from residents of Hudson county. At the time he took employment, the defendant entered into a written agreement with the complainant that, upon the termination of his employment, he would surrender to his employer a list of his customers, and that he would not "solicit orders of wet wash from any of the customers of the said Owl Laundry Co., Inc., either for myself or as employee of any other person or persons, corporation or corporations, in the county of Hudson, state of New Jersey, and that I will not engage in the wet wash business in any capacity for myself or others either natural or artificial persons in any portion or portions of the county of Hudson, in the state of New Jersey, for the period of two (2) years continuously from the time of the termination of my employment with the Owl Laundry Co., Inc." The defendant broke his promises just quoted, and the bill is filed to restrain further breaches. Relief is resisted on the ground that a compliance with the agreement will effect an unreasonable restraint of the defendant's opportunities to secure work in his line of trade, and is therefore contrary to public policy.
1. The nature of the defendant's services brought him into intimate relation with the complainant's trade, and, obviously for the purpose of preventing the defendant from diverting the custom he secured for the complainant to a competitor, the restrictions upon the defendant's activities, after the termination of his employment, were stipulated as a part of the contract. The restrictions as to area and time are both reasonably necessary for the protection of the complainant's business. American Ice Co. v. Lynch, 74 N. J. Eq. (4 Buch.) 298, 70 Atl. 138.
2. It is also contended that the contract is illegal because the defendant covenanted that he would not engage in the wet wash business in any capacity, and the argument is that it is broader than necessary for the protection of the complainant's business in that it prevents the defendant from accepting employment from any concern engaged in a wet wash business, even as a watchman, janitor, machinist, or scrubber of the wash. The identical point was raised in Sternberg v. O'Brien, 48 N. J. Eq. (3 Dick.) 370, 22 Atl. 348, and there decided by Vice Chancellor Van Fleet against the views now advanced by the defendant.
The complainant is entitled to an injunction as broad as may be necessary to insure a compliance with both the letter and spirit of the defendant's agreement. The complainant is entitled to costs.