Court Opinion

ID: 9681334
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:48:30.119784+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:33.401670
License: Public Domain

Ed. F. McFaddin, Associate Justice (concurring). I concur in the result reached by the Majority, but through a process of reasoning slightly different from that shown in the Majority Opinion. I agree with the Majority on the first point of the Opinion: Mr. Bew’s agreement not to engage in the laundry business or linen service for five years was too broad and was therefore void as contrary to public policy. I disagree with the Majority’s reasoning on the second point. I cannot say that the finding of the Chancellor is contrary to the preponderance of the evidence. As I see it, Mr. Bew had no right to purchase the Lasker business for himself at the time he was in the employ of the appellee. I agree with most of the Dissenting Opinion of Judge Ward on this point. But even while disagreeing from the Majority’s reasoning on the second point, I nevertheless reach the same conclusion the Majority has reached; because, as I see it, the appellee is not entitled to take over Bew’s contract of purchase from Lasker. Several points are involved here. When Mr. Bew’s corporations acquired the Lasker interests one of the integral and governing provisions of that contract was that Bew’s corporations would employ Myron B. Lasker for a period of seven years at $6,500.00 a year. Lasker agreed to work for Bew’s corporations, not for the appellee; and Lasker could not be forced to work for the appellee. Specific performance will not be granted on an executory contract to do work. Leonard v. Board of Directors, 79 Ark. 42, 94 S. W. 922. See also 49 Am. Jur. p. 157. Furthermore, Myron B. Lasker was not even a party to the record in this case Appellee might have been entitled to damages against Bew, but appellee is not entitled to an assignment of the contract of sale. Appellee proved no damages, so wins a mere pyrrhic victory on this point. As to the third point, I agree with the Majority that no damages were proved by Bew. So I concur in the result reached by the Majority, but still maintain that Mr. Bew should not have dealt with Lasker while Bew was in the employ of the appellee.