Case Name: Journal Company, Appellant, vs. Bundy and another, Respondents
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Wisconsin
Decision Date: 1949-04-12
Citations: 254 Wis. 390
Docket Number: 
Parties: Journal Company, Appellant, vs. Bundy and another, Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: Wisconsin Reports
Volume: 254
Pages: 390–397

Head Matter:
Journal Company, Appellant, vs. Bundy and another, Respondents.
January 18
April 12, 1949.
For the appellant there was a brief by Shea & Hoyt of Milwaukee, and oral argument by Edmund B. Shea.
Herbert Mount of Milwaukee, for the respondent Jack Bundy, and Bruce B. F. Randolph of Milwaukee, for the respondent Midwest Broadcasting Company.

Opinion:
Broadfoot, J.
Clause (k) in the contract of August 20, 1932, is an agreement in restraint of trade. Cases have arisen out of many such agreements in Wisconsin. Laubenheimer v. Mann, 17 Wis. 559; Cottington v. Swan, 128 Wis. 321, 107 N. W. 336; My Laundry Co. v. Schmeling, 129 Wis. 597, 109 N. W. 540; Kradwell v. Thiesen, 131 Wis. 97, 111 N. W. 233; Madson v. Johnson, 164 Wis. 612, 160 N. W. 1085; Durbrow Commission Co. v. Donner, 201 Wis. 175, 229 N. W. 635; Wisconsin Ice & Coal Co. v. Lueth, 213 Wis. 42, 250 N. W. 819.
The law has become well established through its application in the above and other cases. The difficulty always arises in the application of the law to the facts in each case. The following quotations from Milwaukee Linen Supply Co. v. Ring, 210 Wis. 467, 470, 471, 473, 246 N. W. 567, state the rules to be applied:
"The contract in suit is one in restraint of trade which is tersely defined as one whose 'performance would limit competition in any business or restrict a promisor in the exercise of a gainful occupation.' Such a contract 'is illegal if the restraint is unreasonable,' and such a contract 'is unreasonable . . . if . it (a)- is greater than is required for the protection of the person for whose benefit the restraint is imposed, or (b) imposes undue hardship upon the person restricted.' Restatement of the Law of Contracts, secs. 513, 514, 515. It will be observed that the findings of the learned trial judge designated above as (17) and (18) find as facts that the contract in suit is unreasonable as violating (a) above, and in effect for violating (b). Finding (17) appears to us to be amply supported by the evidence as does (18) when other evidentiary facts found are considered in connection with it.
". . . But a contract in restraint of trade may be valid as applied to one set of circumstances, and invalid as applied to another set.
". . . The question always resolves itself into 'what is a reasonable restraint with reference to the particular case.' Id. p. 32. 'Any restraint is unreasonable' which is more extensive 'than the interests of the party with whom the contract is made can possibly require.' Id. p. 34. There is greater scope of restraint in contracts between vendor and vendee than between employer and employee. In the latter class of cases there is 'small scope for the restraint of the right to labor and trade and a correspondingly small freedom of contract.' In such cases 'in order that the court may uphold and enforce a restriction, . . . the court must find that the facts alleged disclose a restriction on the employee reasonably necessary for the fair protection of the employer's business or rights, and not unreasonably restricting the rights of the employee, due regard being had to the interests of the public and the circumstances and conditions under which the contract is to be performed.' "
The trial court in its memorandum decision, in its findings of fact and conclusions of law, and in the judgment clearly indicated that it was familiar with the law. Its findings of fact are supported by the evidence. They cannot be disturbed unless they are against the great weight and clear preponderance of the evidence. Depies-Heus Oil Co. v. Sielaff, 246 Wis. 36, 16 N. W. (2d) 386; Will of West, 246 Wis. 199, 16 N. W. (2d) 806; Angers v. Sabatinelli, 246 Wis. 374, 17 N. W. (2d) 282, 18 N. W. (2d) 705; Kearney v. Massman Construction Co. 247 Wis. 56, 18 N. W. (2d) 481.
The defendants claim upon the appeal that the court abused its discretion in refusing to award costs to each of the defendants. We find that the court was within its discretion in awarding costs as it did.
Both appellant and respondents submitted briefs containing more than fifty pages. Each attached a request that in case it should prevail it be permitted to tax costs for printing the same. Each stated that the long briefs were necessary due to the amount of factual information and the length of the record. The respondents will be allowed full costs for printing their brief.
By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.