This suit is brоught to enjoin the defendant, a former employee of the plaintiff, from engaging in business in violation of the provisions of a written contract signed by the defendant. The trial judge made findings of facts and entered a decree dismissing the bill. The plaintiff’s appeal brings the case hеre. The facts found must be accepted as true since the evidence is not reported. The question to be determined is whether оn those facts the decree was right. Nelson v. Wentworth,
The facts relevant to the grounds of this decision are these: The defendant, on May 15, 1931, entered thе service of the plaintiff as manager of the meat department of its store at Squantum. On November 10, 1932, the defendant signed an employment agreement with the plaintiff after being informed by the district supervisor of the plaintiff that such “agreement would have to be signed or his employment terminated.” This contract in writing and under seal was signed by the defendant and not by the plaintiff. It provided in part that “Whereas, said Employer hаs agreed to employ said Employee to work for it in the conduct of its retail grocery, meat and/or food supplies business, Now, Therefore, in consideration of the employment of said Employee by said Employer and the weekly compensation now or hereafter to be paid to said Employee, said Employee agrees that: 1. He will during the term of said employment devote his entire businеss time and energy in behalf of said Employer. 2. He will keep secret and not divulge to any person, firm or corporation, exceрt by express order of said Employer, the names and addresses of and/or all information concerning each and every customer of the said Employer. 3. In the event that his employment by said Employer shall terminate, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, then for a period of оne (1) year commencing with the time when such employment shall cease — A. He will not solicit, either directly or indirectly, the grocery, meаt and/or food supplies business of any customers of said Employer . ... B. He will not, directly or indirectly, as employee, manager, proрrietor, owner, co-partner, or as a
There was no agreement on the part of the plaintiff to employ the defendant for any fixed or definite period. Nothing was said as to how long the employee should work for the employer. The trial judge found that “the terms of section 3, A and B of this contract which restricts his ^defendant’s] employment in the event that he ceases to be an employee, and the territory in which the restriction was contemplated, were reasonable conditions.” The trial judge ruled that “the defendant having been discharged without just or adequate cause, the plaintiff is not entitled to equitable relief.”
A covenant inserted in a contract for personal service, restricting trade, or competitiоn, or freedom of employment, is not invalid and may be enforced in equity provided it is necessary for the protection of the emрloyer, is not injurious to the public interest, and is reasonably limited in time and space. What is reasonable depends upon the facts. Sherman v. Pfefferkorn,
The trial judge exercised his discretion against granting equitable relief to the plaintiff. In our opinion it cannot rightly be held on the facts found that there was error in entering a decree dismissing the bill.
Decree affirmed with costs.