Orkin Exterminating Co. of Raleigh, Inc. v. Griffin

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Orkin Exterminating Co. of Raleigh, Inc. v. Griffin

128 S.E.2d 139, 258 N.C. 179, 1962 N.C. LEXIS 649

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedNovember 21, 1962

Docket470, 471

StatusPublished

Cited by23 cases

This text of 128 S.E.2d 139 (Orkin Exterminating Co. of Raleigh, Inc. v. Griffin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Orkin Exterminating Co. of Raleigh, Inc. v. Griffin, 128 S.E.2d 139, 258 N.C. 179, 1962 N.C. LEXIS 649 (N.C. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Each defendant makes only one assignment of error. It raises the question whether the -court below erred in continuing the temporary restraining order until the final determination of the action on its merits.

The judge was not requested to find the facts upon which he continued the temporary restraining order and he made none. However, it is presumed for the purpose of his order that he found facts sufficient to support it. Hall v. Coach Co. et. al., 224 N.C. 781, 32 S.E. 2d 325; *181 Edmonds v. Hall, 236 N.C. 153, 72 S.E. 2d 221; Strong, N.C. Index, Injunctions, Sec. 13.

The affidavits disclose that defendants in the course of their employment had acquired knowledge which would give them an unfair advantage over plaintiff in a competitive business. Under such circumstances equity will enforce a covenant not to compete if it is: “(1) in writing, (2) entered into at the time and as a part of the contract of employment, (3) based on valuable considerations, (4) reasonable both as to time and territory embraced in the restrictions (5) fair to the parties, and (6) not against public policy.” Asheville Associates v. Miller and Asheville Associates v. Berman, 255 N.C. 400, 121 S.E. 2d 593. Exterminating Co. v. Wilson, 227 N.C. 96, 40 S.E. 2d 696; G.S. 75-4.

The plaintiff in this case made out a 'prima facie showing of right to the final injunctive relief it demanded. When this is done the court will ordinarily continue a temporary restraining order if, in its opinion, it is reasonably necessary to protect the plaintiff’s rights until the controversy can be finally determined. On this record, we think the plaintiff was entitled to have the temporary restraining order continued as ordered by Judge Paul. Studios v. Goldston, 249 N.C. 117, 105 S.E. 2d 277.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

Each defendant makes only one assignment of error. It raises the question whether the -court below erred in continuing the temporary restraining order until the final determination of the action on its merits.

The judge was not requested to find the facts upon which he continued the temporary restraining order and he made none. However, it is presumed for the purpose of his order that he found facts sufficient to support it. Hall v. Coach Co. et. al., 224 N.C. 781, 32 S.E. 2d 325; *181 Edmonds v. Hall, 236 N.C. 153, 72 S.E. 2d 221; Strong, N.C. Index, Injunctions, Sec. 13.

The affidavits disclose that defendants in the course of their employment had acquired knowledge which would give them an unfair advantage over plaintiff in a competitive business. Under such circumstances equity will enforce a covenant not to compete if it is: “(1) in writing, (2) entered into at the time and as a part of the contract of employment, (3) based on valuable considerations, (4) reasonable both as to time and territory embraced in the restrictions (5) fair to the parties, and (6) not against public policy.” Asheville Associates v. Miller and Asheville Associates v. Berman, 255 N.C. 400, 121 S.E. 2d 593. Exterminating Co. v. Wilson, 227 N.C. 96, 40 S.E. 2d 696; G.S. 75-4.

The plaintiff in this case made out a 'prima facie showing of right to the final injunctive relief it demanded. When this is done the court will ordinarily continue a temporary restraining order if, in its opinion, it is reasonably necessary to protect the plaintiff’s rights until the controversy can be finally determined. On this record, we think the plaintiff was entitled to have the temporary restraining order continued as ordered by Judge Paul. Studios v. Goldston, 249 N.C. 117, 105 S.E. 2d 277.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 S.E.2d 139, 258 N.C. 179, 1962 N.C. LEXIS 649, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/orkin-exterminating-co-of-raleigh-inc-v-griffin-nc-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack