ROBERT W. SIMMS, APPELLANT,
v.
WILSON D. PATTERSON, APPELLEE
ROBERT W. SIMMS, APPELLANT,
WILSON D. PATTERSON, APPELLEE
55 Fla. 707
Florida Supreme Court (1908)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases
Opinion of the Court
Cockrell, J.
-—-This is a bill to enjoin Wilson D. Patterson, formerly employed by Simims as salesman and shipping clerk, for breach of contract “ever to engage in the liquor business in Florida or in any other state selling goods in Florida.” The 'bill does not allege any personal contact or peculiar influence of Patterson over the customers of Simms and the case cannot be distinguished on principle from that of Simms v. Burnette, decided this day. For the reasons therein given, the order sustaining the demurrer to the bill is affirmed.
Shackleford, C. J., and Whitfield, J., concur;
Taylor, Hocker, and Parkhill, JJ., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
King v. Ola Wells and her husband, 100 Fla. 588 (Fla. 1930)…ser sum than that originally agreed upon. A breach of contract for ordinary personal services is fully remediable at law. Simms v. Burnette, 55 Fla. 702, 46 So. R. 90, 16 L. R. A. (N. S.) 389, 127 A. S. R. 201, 15 Ann. Cas. 690; Simms v. Patterson, 55 Fla. 707, 46 So. R. 91. A bill of complaint which shows no ground for the interposition of a court- of equity will be ordered dismissed. Hendry v. Whidden, 48 Fla. 268, 37 So. R. 571. The final decree is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions t…
-
Arond v. Grossman, 75 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 1954)…has been upheld in this jurisdiction. Such contracts will not be enforced, absent some special equity, and have generally been stricken down for “lack of mutuality.” Simms v. Burnette, 55 Fla. 702, 46 So. 90, 16 L.R.A.,N.S., 389; Simms v. Patterson, 55 Fla. 707, 46 So. 91. The same rule has been applied to support the refusal of injunctive relief in cases involving the enforcement of restrictive covenants in contracts of employment. Love v. Miami Laundry Co., 118 Fla. 137, 160 So. 32; J. Schaeffer, Inc., v…