Case Name: FRENCH BROS. BAUER CO. v. TOWNSEND BROS. MILK CO. et
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1925-11-09
Citations: 4 Ohio Law Abs. 21
Docket Number: No. 2768
Parties: FRENCH BROS. BAUER CO. v. TOWNSEND BROS. MILK CO. et
Judges: 
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 4
Pages: 21–22

Head Matter:
FRENCH BROS. BAUER CO. v. TOWNSEND BROS. MILK CO. et
Ohio Appeals, 1st Dist., Hamilton Co.
No. 2768.
Decided Nov. 9, 1925.

Opinion:
BUCHWALTER, P. J.
This action was one in appeal for injunction by the French Bros. Bauer Company against the Townsend Bros. Milk Company et al, on the ground of unfair competition. The Bauer Company claimed that the defendant company, by enticing away its employees for the purpose of securing trade routes built up by the plaintiff company and in the use of the same, Townsend Bros. Milk Company, in an endeavor to sieze the good will of plaintiff company is guilty of unfair competition.
It seems that in 1906 the Bauer Company purchased the Townsend Milk Co. operated by John Townsend, the father of Elmer, Roy and Henry Townsend. Later the Townsend Milk Company was conducted as an independent branch of the Bauer Company. In 1915 The Townsend Company and the West Dairy Co. was purchased by the French Bauer Company and the three sons were employed in the business until January 1924, when Henry left. In June, 1925, Elmer and Roy Townsend became associated with their brother in a competing business under the name of the Townsend Bros. Milk Co.
Elmér Townsend was in full charge of the advertising and the hiring of employees. It was claimed that various drivers, skippers and the chief route foreman of the Bauer Company left it upon his resigning, and became associated with the Townsend Bros. Milk Company.
It was claimed that a campaign was started to secure customers for the new Company; and old employees of the plaintiff were employed to this end, soliciting over the same routes as they had been employed to do when in the employ of plaintiff; and that many of the former customers of the French Bros.Bauer Co. were secured by this method. The Court of Appeals held:
1. The important question, it seems, is the employment of the former employees, route men, etc., in securing the customers of the former employees, route men, etc., in securing customers of the plaintiff company.
2. While there is no written list of such customers, the employees knew and had in mind every such customer and the reason for the rule is just as pertinent under these circumstances, as if there had been a written list.
3. From an examination of the récord, the plaintiff has offered sufficient evidence to warrant the issuance of an injunction.
4. An injunction will be allowed to prevent the Townsend Bros. Milk Company from em ploying any of the drivers, route foreman, or skippers of the French Bros.-Bauer Co., who were formerly, or are at present employed by The Townsend West Dairy Co., to serve or to work over the trade routes served by such employees at the time of leaving the French Bros.-Bauer Co.; and from employing such employees to solicit the customers served by them while employed by plaintiff, to become customers of said defendant.
Attorneys — Mallon & Vordenberg for Bauer Co.; Harmon, Colston, Goldsmith and Hoadley, for Townsend Co.; all of Cincinnati.
5. The injunction will continue for one year from date of the decree entered in the Superior Court of Cincinnati, herein.
Decree accordingly.