From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stuart v. Meeker

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
May 11, 1961
289 F.2d 902 (D.C. Cir. 1961)

Opinion

No. 16060.

Argued April 28, 1961.

Decided May 11, 1961. Petition for Rehearing En Banc Denied June 7, 1961.

Mr. J. Robert Carey, Washington, D.C., with whom Messrs. Michael F. Keogh and John F. Costello, Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for appellants.

Mr. John F. Burke, Washington, D.C., also entered an appearance for appellants.

Mr. John L. Ingoldsby, Jr., Washington, D.C., with whom Mr. Patrick J. Head, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for appellee.

Before WILBUR K. MILLER, Chief Judge, and EDGERTON and PRETTYMAN Circuit Judges.


The parties had been partners in an air conditioning business. Stuart sold his interest to Meeker and agreed that for two years he would not "interfere" with Meeker's business, but would work for him as a part-time employee. Meeker sued Stuart for alleged violations of the dissolution agreement and was awarded damages and other relief. Stuart appeals.

We accept the trial court's interpretation of the dissolution agreement, and are of the opinion that the evidence supported its decision.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Stuart v. Meeker

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
May 11, 1961
289 F.2d 902 (D.C. Cir. 1961)
Case details for

Stuart v. Meeker

Case Details

Full title:Edward M. STUART and The John E. Stuart Company, Appellants, v. Theodore…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

Date published: May 11, 1961

Citations

289 F.2d 902 (D.C. Cir. 1961)
110 U.S. App. D.C. 161

Citing Cases

Economics Laboratory, Inc. v. Donnolo

The other courts which have considered the matter are, with one exception, unanimous in declining to grant an…

U.S. Steel Corp. v. United Mine Wkrs. of Amer.

It is the generally followed federal rule that there can be no recovery of damages caused by a preliminary…