Case ID: ohio-cc_13/html/0205-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Swing, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(First Circuit — Hamilton Co., O., Circuit Court,
    Nov. Term, 1896.)
    Before Smith, Swing and Cox, JJ.
    DUSANT L. PETERSON v. CHAS. SCHMIDT.
    
      Contract in restraint of trade.
    
    A contract in the sale of a business not- to enter into the same business within four squares of the old stand sold, is not an unreasonable restraint of trade, and will be enforced.
    
      Same — Opening Klee business in name of wife.
    
    Where a party,having agreed in the sale of his business not to engage in the same business within four squares of his old stand, opens a like business within a few feet, of four squares from his old stand, in the name of his wife, he working for her, such arrangement being obviously made to avoid the agreement entered into in the sale of the old business, he will be enjoined from carrying on such business.
    Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton county.
    This suit was to enjoin Schmidt from operating a bakery at 1900 Vine street. Schmidt sold the bakery at No. 113 Elder street to Peterson for $1,000, agreeing not to go into the business again within four squares of the old stand. The new business started by Schmidt at 1900 Vine street is carried on in the name of his wife, by whom he claims to be employed. The common pleas court granted a perpetual injunction aaginst a continuance of the new business by Schmidt.
    
      Joel C. Clore, and Tkos. L. Midhie, for Plaintiff.
    
      Von Seggern, Pharos & Dewald, contra.
   Swing, J.

We do not think it will be in the interest of justice that the injunction granted by the court of common pleas should be suspended. The contract that the parties entered into should be construed so as to give effect to the instrument, and in doing this it should have a reasonable construction. Now, taking the most favorable view of defendant’s claim, he would be engaged in the bakery business within a few feet of the four squares mentioned in the contract. This fact, taken together with the further fact that the business is claimed to be in the wife’s name, while he himself is 'working for his wife, indicates that he is endeavoring to avoid the terms of his contract, and shows bad faith on his part, and such conduct does not commend itself to a court of equity.

The contract is not against public policy. The limitation is reasonable, and'there is nothing to prevent the defendant from engaging in business at any place which in all reason is beyond the limitations to which he agreed in his contract, and for which he secured plaintiff’s money.