Brown Stove Works, Inc. v. Kimsey, supra, at 455-56, 167 S.E.2d at 694-95. Reaffirming this distinction, in a case where, as here, deferred compensation was sought by the ex-employee, is the case of Sheppard v. Columbus Packaging Co., Inc., 146 Ga. App. 202, 245 S.E.2d 887 (1978). Plaintiff makes a strong contention that paragraph 6 is void and unenforceable as an unreasonable restraint on trade as paragraph 6 is not limited in time and geographic area. He cites numerous decisions of the Supreme Court.

" ( Collins held that the allegation by a former employee that the enforcement of forfeiture provisions made pursuant to a profit-sharing plan was wilful and wanton failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.) See also Sheppard v. Columbus Packaging Co., 146 Ga. App. 202, 203 ( 245 S.E.2d 887) (1978), which relied upon Brown Stove and Collins. In Sheppard, the court enforced a provision in an employment contract that provided for deferred compensation so long as the former employee did not engage in competition.

Cf. Jenkins v. Jenkins Irrigation, 244 Ga. 95 ( 259 S.E.2d 47) (1979). Appellants argue in their supplemental brief that Sheppard v. Columbus Packaging Co., 146 Ga. App. 202 ( 245 S.E.2d 887) (1978), is applicable. Sheppard, however, concerns a deferred compensation plan in which payments similar to salary were paid to Sheppard.

Unlike the legal infirmity that the Supreme Court in A.L. Williams, supra, found to exist in Brown Stove Works v. Kimsey, 119 Ga. App. 453, 455-456 (2) ( 167 SE2d 693) (1969), the forfeiture provision was not triggered by an employee engaging in competitive employment elsewhere, and the plan imposed no penalty linked to such employment. Nor did the forfeiture provision condition Milhollin's receipt of the deferred compensation upon not accepting employment with a competitor of SSB or Citigroup. See Sheppard v. Columbus Packaging Co., 146 Ga. App. 202, 202-204 ( 245 SE2d 887) (1978) (contractual conditions disapproved by A.L. Williams, supra, as an unlawful restraint of trade). Finally, we consider Milhollin's argument that he alleged sufficient facts in his complaint to forestall judgment on the pleadings.

182 Ga. App. 135 ( 355 S.E.2d 437) (1987). 146 Ga. App. 202 ( 245 S.E.2d 887) (1978). Accordingly,

The written contract could have expressly provided for loss of rights and privileges by forfeiture for engaging in competitive employment, but it did not do so. Collins v. Storer Broadcasting Co., 217 Ga. 41, 50-51 (2) (b) ( 120 S.E.2d 764) (1961); Sheppard v. Columbus Pkg. Co., 146 Ga. App. 202 ( 245 S.E.2d 887) (1978); Brown Stove Works v. Kimsey, 119 Ga. App. 453-456 (2) ( 167 S.E.2d 693) (1969). In fact, a written insurance agent employment contract could provide for the forfeiture of future commissions on renewal premiums for working for a competitor; however, the compensation schedule and the written employment agreement did not do so.

Rather, these addendums contain contract provisions which impose certain conditions on the receipt of commissions based on the future renewals of policies sold by or credited as being sold by Burt and Evans. In Sheppard v. Columbus Pkg. Co., 146 Ga. App. 202 ( 245 S.E.2d 887), this court held that "a provision of a contract which imposes as a condition to the recovery of benefits under a deferred compensation plan that the employee refrain from engaging in competitive employment is not violative of public policy as being in restraint of trade." (Emphasis supplied.)

2. Defendant first argues that the case sub judice is controlled by Sheppard v. Columbus Packaging Co., 146 Ga. App. 202 (1) ( 245 S.E.2d 887) (1978). In Sheppard the plaintiff argued that the restrictive covenants at issue therein were unenforceable because not limited in time and geographic area. Distinguishing the circumstances in Sheppard, in which plaintiff sought to recover deferred compensation, from those suits involving injunctions to prevent the violation of restrictive covenants not to engage in competition, this court held that "a provision of a contract which imposes as a condition to the recovery of benefits under a deferred compensation plan that the employee refrain from engaging in competitive employment is not violative of public policy as being is restraint of trade."

To the extent that plaintiff's motion seeks an order in its behalf on this forfeiture question, it is denied. See Collins v. Storer Broadcasting, 217 Ga. 41 (1961); Sheppard v. Columbus Packaging, 146 Ga. App. 202 (1988); Shandor v. Wells National Service, 478 F. Supp. 12 (N. D. Ga. 1979)."