| Ark. | Jun 20, 1910
Defendant, Thomas Hampton, is a barber, and owned and operated a barber shop in the town of Walnut Ridge, and on May 19, 1909, sold out to the plaintiffs, Caldwell & Hall. He claims that he sold to them the shop outfit for the sum of $750, and that there was no other agreement concerning the matter save that of the sale. Plaintiffs claim that he sold them the outfit for $500, and the good will of the business for $250, expressly agreeing not to again go into that business at Walnut Ridge. A few months later he started to open another shop at that place, and they instituted this action in the chancery court to restrain him from violating the alleged contract.
Such a contract is reasonable and enforcible, and a court of equity will restrain its breach. Bloom v. Home Insurance Agency, 91 Ark. 367" date_filed="1909-07-12" court="Ark." case_name="Bloom v. Home Insurance Agency">91 Ark. 367, and cases cited.
An oral contract of that sort is not within the statute of frauds, for it is not one which, according to its terms, does not admit of performance within a year. The death of the obligor within a year would have brought the contract to an end; therefore, it might have been fully performed within a year. Meyer v. Roberts, 46 Ark. 80" date_filed="1885-11-15" court="Ark." case_name="Meyer v. Roberts">46 Ark. 80; Ry. Co. v. Whitley, 54 Ark. 199" date_filed="1891-02-07" court="Ark." case_name="Railway Co. v. Whitley">54 Ark. 199; Sullivan v. Winters, 91 Ark. 149" date_filed="1909-06-21" court="Ark." case_name="Sullivan v. Winters">91 Ark. 149; Valley Planting Co. v. Wise, 93 Ark. 1" date_filed="1909-12-20" court="Ark." case_name="Valley Planting Co. v. Wise">93 Ark. 1; Lyon v. King, 11 Metc. (Mass.) 411, 45 Am. Dec. 219; Smith on the Law of Fraud, § 347.
The evidence is conflicting; but we think it supports the finding of the chancellor, and is sufficient to warrant a court of equity in restraining a breach of the contract.
Decree affirmed. .