Court Opinion

ID: 9683514
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:30:30.606294+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:48.493053
License: Public Domain

Souris, J.
{dissenting). As noted by Mr. Justice Dethmers, a preliminary injunction was issued, after testimonial hearing, against all of the defendants. Not all of the defendants, however, have appealed. Joe Hatler, the defendant who executed the covenant not to compete, has not appealed. The preliminary injunction against him remains in full force and alone is sufficient to protect plaintiff pendente lite *294against breach of Hatter’s covenant. If the remaining defendants aid or abet his breach of that covenant in violation of that injunction, knowledge of which they have, the chancellor can invoke his contempt powers as fully against them as he can against Hatler himself. White v. Wadhams, 211 Mich 658, and Craig v. Kelley, 311 Mich 167. See, also, CLS 1961, § 600.1701, subd (5) (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 27A.-1701 subd [5]).
Plaintiff is entitled to no greater injunctive relief against the remaining defendants. They are not bound by contract or otherwise to abstain from competing against plaintiff so long as they do not do so with Joe Hatter’s assistance, nor does plaintiff claim to the contrary. The only claim alleged properly against them, which finds some support in the proofs offered, is that all defendants participated in Hatter’s violation of his covenant.
Accordingly, issuance of the preliminary injunction against the appellants, in language so broad it forbids them from engaging in a business in which they have a right to engage so long as they do not participate in Hatter’s breach of his covenant, was erroneous. The injunction against appellants should, therefore, be vacated and costs awarded appellants.