Court Opinion

ID: 9668825
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 02:27:56.927146+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:48.863170
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing
HARWOOD, Justice.
In brief in support of appellant’s application for rehearing, counsel argue that we consider and rule upon the court’s action in refusing to admit evidence tending to show the decrease in Dr. Joseph’s earnings occurring after Dr. Hopkins had re*25opened his office; evidence that many of Dr. Hopkins’ patients, after the reopening of his office, had been his patients prior to the sale of his business to Dr. Joseph, or patients of Dr. Hopkins and Dr. Joseph during their association; and that Dr. Joseph had been unable to sublease the Exchange Hotel location, but was yet liable for the rent.
In noting one of his exceptions to the above rulings, counsel stated: “ * * * this is an infringement of good will which is expressed in the contract.”
Dr. Hopkins having a lawful right under the contract to reopen his office evidence that Dr. Joseph’s professional income declined thereafter was immaterial in establishing a breach of the contract.
Where one has a lawful right to conduct a rival business or profession, he is permitted to deal with former patrons or clients who, because of past services may elect to again patronize him. 24 Am. Jur., Good Will, Sec. 23. The evidence that former patients returned to Dr. Hopkins shed no light upon the question of whether the contract between Hopkins and Joseph had been breached, and was properly rejected. Likewise as to the proffered evidence seeking to establish that Dr. Joseph was liable under the rental contract for the Exchange Hotel location, which lease had been duly transferred by Hopkins to Joseph, and the transfer accepted in writing by Joseph.
There being no breach of the contract resulting from Dr. Hopkins reopening his office, and his actions being lawful, no damages could be claimed, nor proved.
The court’s rulings in the premises were therefore correct.
Opinion extended; application overruled.
LIVINGSTON, C. J., and SIMPSON and MERRILL, JJ., concur.