Friedman v. Friedman
This text of 74 S.E.2d 860 (Friedman v. Friedman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The only exception is to a judgment refusing an interlocutory injunction to prevent a former employee from engaging in a business similar to that of the former employer, because of a clause in the contract of employment which in substance forbids the employee, for a period of twelve months and in a well-defined area, from engaging for himself or others in “any kind or character of business identical or similar with any business operated by” the employer. While meeting the requirements as to. reasonable time and area, this contract is fatally defective and void because it is indefinite, and for this reason unreasonable, in the description of the prohibited business, and the court did not err in denying the prayer for an interlocutory injunction. Hood v. Legg, 160 Ga. 620, 625 (128 S. E. 891); Orkin Exterminating Co. v. Dewberry, 204 Ga. 794 (51 S. E. 2d, 669). See also Robinson v. Reynolds, 194 Ga. 324 (1) (21 S. E. 2d, 214).
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
74 S.E.2d 860, 209 Ga. 653, 1953 Ga. LEXIS 339, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/friedman-v-friedman-ga-1953.