History
  • No items yet
midpage
Tsangas v. Broogos
95 N.J. Eq. 499
New York Court of Chancery
1924
Check Treatment
Church, V. C.

This is a case which involves the construction of a clause in an agreement which reads as follows: "The part]' of the first part agrees not to enter the same business within ten city blocks.” The complainant seeks to restrain the defendant from engaging in the restaurant business at 174 North Broad street, Newark, or any other place within ten city blocks of the complainant’s business.

It is admitted that defendant is in the restaurant business at that address. It seems to me that, in so far as this court is concerned, the question is res adjudiccda, under the case of Messinger v. Franzblau, which was decided by "Vice-Chancellor Backes and reported in 118 Atl. Rep. 260.

In that case the covenant was not to engage in the same business within an area of ten city blocks. I cannot see that there is any material difference between the words “ten city blocks” and “an area of ten city blocks,” and I therefore feel compelled, under the decision above cited, to advise a decree for the defendant, with costs.

Case Details

Case Name: Tsangas v. Broogos
Court Name: New York Court of Chancery
Date Published: Jan 16, 1924
Citation: 95 N.J. Eq. 499
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.