New-York tribune., 1919-03-03
RIJsINESS NEWS BUREAU:
Tribune Building
l54 Nassau Street
The Tribune's Page Of Business News

missed. Another driver was employed
and was given the list of places for
merly served by Light. When the new
drivers salesman began to make his
rounds he soon found that many of
his firms customers had already been
served by Light, and they furthermore
informed him that they were perfect
ly we'll satisfied to be so served. as
they did not know the company any
way, never having had any contact
with it.
The company became alarmed at
its loss of trade and investigated. 1t
was found that Light had secured the
backing of one Samuel Cohen, and
had started in the coat and towel
supply business on his own account.
The company then called upon it's
attorneys, Prince & Nathan, of Is
Light from doing business with their
trade. 1t was set forth that all in
formation as to identity and location
of its customers had been obtained
by Light as result of his employ
ment by the company and that these
customers had been secured at largo
expense The company claimed that
1T was entitled to protection from
what it characterized as unwarrantcd
1t was conceded that any competing
concern, if it was able, could take
Its customers by use of lower rates
or better service, but insisted that
its own employees should not have that
same privilege. The company did
not ask that its cmploye should not
engage in the same line Of business,
but did insist that ne seek his own
patronage.
The case was tried before Justice
Van Siclen in the Supreme Court in
Brooklyn, and decision was rendered
in favor of the defendant, Judge Van
Siclen declaring that the defendants,
Light and Cohen, had a perfect right to
take customers in the manner they
had. Prince & Nathan, attorneys for
the plaintiff, appealed and the case was
brought before the Appellate Divi-
sion, Second Department, where the
case was argued at great length before
five judges. Justice Thomas wrote an
opinion for the Appellate Division
which was concurred in by all other
members Of the court.
Doctrine Is Established
Immediately after the rendering Of
this decision several other concerns
doing a similar business asked Prince
e. Nathan to bring suits restraining
their former employees in the same
manner. The courts, however, refused
to accept the decision as rendered by
the Appellate Division, and Justice
Kelby, sitting in the same branch Of
the Supreme Court in another action,
brought by the same attorneys, refused
to grant the injunction sought and
rendered decision, in which he said in
part:
"If this opinion is sustained its ex-
tension is warranted to every sort and
variety of trade, profession and en-
ployment. 1t will end forever for
youth the ambition of competing with
the employer for the old trade by fair
means and hopeful energy. If the prin-
ciple contended for be rigidly and uni
formly applied the preposterous legal
result would follow that an apprentice
hand, having mastered his business of
profession, may only use his energies
to the full in some other occupation
or in some other place.
THE plaintiff does not rest it's claim
upon any merit of invention or secret
process brought into the business. It's
sonal solicitation. The plaintiff did
not in advance require it's employees
to covenant not to enter into compe-
tition on leaving the employ. This
could have been done and probably
would be enforceable"
Justice Shearn, who also refused an
injunction in a similar case, said that
if the plea of the plaintiff were
granted "employment would be spe
ces of hopeless servitude."
The case Of the Peoples Coat, Apron
and Towel Supply Company was finally
taken to the Court of Appeals in Al
bany, which aft med the decision of
the Appellate Division granting the
injunction restraining Light, and the
doctrine which the decision declares
is now definitely established.