Schwalm v. Holmes
49 Cal. 665
Opinion
The contract recited in the answer is not illegal, as being in restraint of trade. The Court erred in sustaining the demurrer to the answer.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded, with directions to overrule the demurrer to the answer.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Schwalm v. Holmes, 49 Cal. 665 (Cal. 1875).
49 Cal. 665 (Schwalm v. Holmes) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Ixchel Pharma, LLC v. Biogen, Inc.
470 P.3d 571 (California Supreme Court, 2020)
Centeno v. Roseville Community Hospital
107 Cal. App. 3d 62 (California Court of Appeal, 1979)
Great Western Distillery Products, Inc. v. John A. Wathen Distillery Co.
74 P.2d 745 (California Supreme Court, 1937)
J. W. Ripy & Son v. Art Wall Paper Mills
1913 OK 694 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1913)
Whitwell v. Continental Tobacco Co.
125 F. 454 (Eighth Circuit, 1903)
Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Burlington & Southwestern Ry. Co.
11 F. 1 (U.S. District Court, 1882)