Tillinghast v. Boothby

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Tillinghast v. Boothby

37 A. 344, 20 R.I. 59, 1897 R.I. LEXIS 35

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedApril 30, 1897

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 37 A. 344 (Tillinghast v. Boothby) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tillinghast v. Boothby, 37 A. 344, 20 R.I. 59, 1897 R.I. LEXIS 35 (R.I. 1897).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This bill.seeks to restrain the defendant from violating the terms of his agreement by which he was employed to work for the complainant, as a dentist, with a stipulation that he would not, after the termination of the contract, ‘ ‘ either directly or indirectly carry on or be employed or concerned in the practice of dentistry in the county of Providence, Rhode Island.”

The ground urged upon demurrer to the bill is that the restrictions are unreasonable. It was decided in French v. Parker, 16 R. I. 219, that such a contract was valid though unlimited as to time ; and in Herreshoff v. Boutineau, 17 R. I. 3, and in Oakdale Co. v. Garst, 18 R. I. 484, that the reasonableness of a restriction in a contract is the test of its validity. There is no manifest unreasonableness in the contract before us, and hence there is no ground apparent in the bill upon which we can declare it to be invalid.

The demurrer is overruled.

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

Per Curiam.

This bill.seeks to restrain the defendant from violating the terms of his agreement by which he was employed to work for the complainant, as a dentist, with a stipulation that he would not, after the termination of the contract, ‘ ‘ either directly or indirectly carry on or be employed or concerned in the practice of dentistry in the county of Providence, Rhode Island.”

The ground urged upon demurrer to the bill is that the restrictions are unreasonable. It was decided in French v. Parker, 16 R. I. 219, that such a contract was valid though unlimited as to time ; and in Herreshoff v. Boutineau, 17 R. I. 3, and in Oakdale Co. v. Garst, 18 R. I. 484, that the reasonableness of a restriction in a contract is the test of its validity. There is no manifest unreasonableness in the contract before us, and hence there is no ground apparent in the bill upon which we can declare it to be invalid.

The demurrer is overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A. 344, 20 R.I. 59, 1897 R.I. LEXIS 35, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tillinghast-v-boothby-ri-1897.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack