33 S.W.2d 43 | Ark. | 1930
STATEMENT OF FACTS
H. F. Marshall brought this suit in equity against George Wright to restrain him from re-entering the restaurant business in the city of Blytheville, Arkansas. The foundation of the suit is a written contract executed between the parties on the 6th day of August, 1929, whereby George Wright sold to H. F. Marshall his restaurant, located on Main Street, Blytheville, Arkansas, *891 and the furniture and other equipment therein, for the sum of $1,000, and the assumption of certain indebtedness connected with the business, amounting in the aggregate to $1,452.53. In addition, the contract contained the following: "And in further consideration of the money paid and the debts assumed under this contract, the said George Wright does hereby agree that he will not hereafter engage in the restaurant business, participate in the operation of a restaurant, accept employment in a restaurant, or own stock in any corporation operating a restaurant, or permit his name to be used by any restaurant, in the city of Blytheville, Arkansas."
The defendant denied liability under the contract.
The contract was introduced in evidence, and the record shows that H. F. Marshall carried out the contract on his part. George Wright, in about a month after the execution of the contract, established a hamburger business in the block west of Marshall's restaurant, and subsequently commenced to work in the restaurant about a block east of Marshall's place in the city of Blytheville. The record also shows that the parties first made verbal offers to each other relative to the sale of the restaurant, and that the clause above copied from the contract of sale was inserted after the parties had gone to a lawyer's office for the purpose of having the contract prepared for execution. The clause was in the contract at the time it was signed by the parties. Other evidence is in the record, but we do not deem it necessary to abstract it.
(after stating the facts). It is well settled in this State that contracts in partial restraint of trade with reference to a particular business, where ancillary to its sale and the good will thereof, are valid and enforceable to the extent reasonably necessary for the protection of the purchaser. Such contracts are intended to secure to the purchaser the good will of the business; and, as a guaranty, the vendor agrees not to *892
engage in like business at that place. The courts recognize that in such cases the vendor has received an equivalent to abstain from business at the place where it was formerly conducted. Webster v. Williams,
Counsel for appellant insist that the court erred in refusing to allow parol evidence to the effect that the $1,000 in cash and the assumption of debts in the sum of $1,452.53 by the purchaser was the sole consideration for the contract, and the agreement not to reengage in the restaurant business in the city of Blytheville on the part of the seller was an after thought, and that there was no consideration upon which to base it. Counsel, in making this contention, rely upon the case of Kimbro v. Wells,
Again, counsel for appellant insist that the case falls within the rule announced in McRae v. Farquhar
Albright Co., 168 Ark. 39,
Therefore the decree will be affirmed.