Case ID: fla_113/html/0279-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam. Davis, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

H. & W. B. Drew Co. v. Harold B. Sanford and Sanford-Hall Co.
    151 So. 545.
    Division B.
    Opinion Filed December 19, 1933.
    
      Fleming, Hamilton, Diver & Lichliter, for Appellant;
    
      Crawford & May, for Appellees.
   Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the decree herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said decree; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and decreed by the Court that the said decree of the Circuit Court be, and the same.is hereby affirmed.

Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.

Davis, C. J.

(concurring). — The injunction sought is in the nature of a decree for specific performance of the contractual provision that appellee would not engage in business after his employment contract with, appellant ended. The circumstances pleaded admitted by the demurrer do not show such a clear right to injunction as to warrant this Court in reversing the ruling, it appearing that an adequate remedy at law remains. On this theory I concur in affirmance.