American Ice Co. v. Lynch

70 A. 138, 74 N.J. Eq. 298, 1908 N.J. Ch. LEXIS 73
CourtNew Jersey Court of Chancery
DecidedMay 8, 1908
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 70 A. 138 (American Ice Co. v. Lynch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Court of Chancery primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
American Ice Co. v. Lynch, 70 A. 138, 74 N.J. Eq. 298, 1908 N.J. Ch. LEXIS 73 (N.J. Ct. App. 1908).

Opinion

Leaming, V. C.

The contention of defendant finds support in a considerable number of adjudicated cases; but this court is now firmly comv mitted to the opposite view. Crane v. Peer, 43 N. J. Eq. (16 Stew.) 553; Brown v. Norcross, 59 N. J. Eq. (14 Dick.) 427; Avon Land Co. v. Thompson, 60 N. J. Eq. (15 Dick.) 207. A consideration of the terms of the present contract and the conditions necessarily surrounding its execution clearly discloses that it was in no sense intended by the parties as an alternative contract designed to extend to defendant an option to either refrain from engaging in an opposition business or to engage in that business among complainant’s customers by paying $200 for the privilege, after having acquired a knowledge of complainant’s business and an acquaintance with its customers. The specific agreement of defendant is not to engage in the business. The purpose and force of that language cannot be mistaken. Had it been the-intention of the parties to also provide that defendant [300]*300should be privileged to purchased his liberty to perform the act which he specifically agreed not to perform, that intention should have been expressed in language equally clear. The territory of restraint and the period of restraint are reasonable, and complainant is clearly entitled to the aid of this court in the enforcement of the agreement.

The stipulations in the contract touching arbitration have no reference to the present conditions, and such stipulations do not operate to defeat the relief now sought.

I will advise an order directing a preliminary injunction to issue to restrain defendant from engaging in the business named within the territory and period specified in the contract.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Sonotone Corp. v. Hayes
67 A.2d 184 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1949)
Silbros, Inc. v. Solomon
52 A.2d 534 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1947)
Heflebower v. Sand
71 F. Supp. 607 (D. Minnesota, 1947)
Dyar Sales & MacHinery Co. v. Bleiler
175 A. 27 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1934)
Love v. Miami Laundry Co.
160 So. 32 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1934)
McAnally v. Person
57 S.W.2d 945 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1933)
In Re Tatnall
141 A. 174 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1928)
A. Fink Sons v. Goldberg
139 A. 408 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1927)
Manchester Dairy System, Inc. v. Hayward
132 A. 12 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1926)
Bettinger v. North Fort Worth Ice Co.
278 S.W. 466 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1925)
Nolan v. Kirchner
98 N.J. Eq. 452 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1925)
Jennings v. Shepherd Laundries Co.
276 S.W. 726 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1925)
Jennings v. Shepherd Laundries
276 S.W. 726 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1925)
Parisian Live Dyers & Cleaners v. Springfield
275 S.W. 1098 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1925)
City Ice Delivery Co. v. Evans
275 S.W. 87 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1925)
Menter Co. v. Brock
180 N.W. 553 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1920)
Wells v. First National Exhibitors' Circuit Inc.
99 S.E. 615 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1919)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
70 A. 138, 74 N.J. Eq. 298, 1908 N.J. Ch. LEXIS 73, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-ice-co-v-lynch-njch-1908.