Opinion ID: 1328620
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Appeal by Plaintiff.

Text: The plaintiff assigns as error the sustaining of the corporate defendant's demurrer. The defendant Antex Exterminating Company, Inc. is a distinct legal entity, and is not a party to any contract not to engage in a competing business with either Orkin Exterminating Company, Inc., or Orkin Exterminating Company of Raleigh, Inc. There are no allegations in the complaint that the corporate defendant knew or had any notice of the alleged non-competitive contracts of Rasberry and Montgomery with Orkin Exterminating Company, Inc. The allegations as to them are that they entered into the contracts attached to the complaint with the original plaintiff, the termination of those contracts, the employment of them by the corporate defendant, and their competing activities. The plaintiff relies upon this statement in Sineath v. Katzis, supra [218 N.C. 740, 12 S.E.2d 681], which it quotes in its brief: However, a stranger to the covenant may properly be enjoined from aiding the covenantor in violating his covenant or receiving any benefit therefrom. Hence, a stranger to the covenant may well be enjoined from, in conjunction with the covenantor, or with his assistance, conducting a business in competition with the covenantee. A few sentences later on this opinion states: Knowledge of the contract, of course, is a condition of liability. The plaintiff further contends that the complaint alleges an interference by the corporate defendant with the alleged contract relationships of the individual defendants with itself, the original plaintiff, and cites in support thereof a quotation from 30 Am.Jur., Interference, Sec. 23, p. 75, and this statement from Annotation 84 A.L.R. 83: It is not justification for knowingly procuring the breach of a contract that defendant acted without an improper purpose, and sought only to further his own interests.    thus, competition is not a justification for inducing one to commit a breach of a contract, and thereby to interfere with the business of the other party thereto. In 30 Am.Jur., Interference, Sec. 22, p. 75, it is said: Knowledge of the existence of a contract is a condition of liability for procuring its breach. In the same annotation from A.L.R. quoted by plaintiff, it is said on p. 49: Knowledge of the contract is, of course, a condition of liability. The complaint states no cause of action against the corporate defendant in respect to its relations with Rasberry and Montgomery, because there is no allegation to the effect that the corporate defendant had any knowledge or notice of the alleged contracts between them and Orkin Exterminating Company, Inc. As we have stated above, the allegations of the complaint that O'Hanlon is a covenantor with Orkin Exterminating Company, Inc. are neutralized and put to naught by the contract attached to the complaint and marked Exhibit A. Therefore, the complaint states no cause of action against the corporate defendant so far as its connection with O'Hanlon is concerned, for it does not appear that O'Hanlon was a covenantor with Orkin Exterminating Company, Inc. If we had adopted the view that, when the amendment substituting Orkin Exterminating Company of Raleigh, Inc. as plaintiff in lieu of Orkin Exterminating Company, Inc. was vacated here, the case did not stand as never amended, it would avail the original plaintiff nothing, because for lack of any plaintiff no action would be pending. It is to be distinctly understood that we have not by anything said here expressed any opinion as to the validity or invalidity of the provisions in the contracts attached to the complaint as to non-competitive activities. On plaintiff's appealAffirmed. On individual defendants' appealReversed and action dismissed.