Eugene Dietzgen Co. v. Kokosky

Citations

• 113 La. 449
• 37 So. 24
• 66 L.R.A. 503
• 1904 La. LEXIS 663

Syllabus

<p>GOOD WILL — SALE—COMPETITION—INJUNCTION —DEFENSES.</p> <p>1. The plaintiff company purchased from the firm of S. T. Beer and Herman Kokosky its assets, business, and good will. In the act of sale the individual members of the firm each bound himself not to engage in competitive business in New Orleans during a certain period. After the sale Kokosky was taken into the employ of -the purchasing company, but, after being so employed, was discharged. He thereupon entered into competitive business. The plaintiff obtained an injunction restraining him from continuing to do so. Defendant in injunction moved to set aside the injunction on the ground that the obligation on his part not to engage in business was conditioned upon the correlative obligation of plaintiff to employ him during the same period, and that his illegal discharge liberated him, ipso facto, from his obligation. Defendant concededly carrying on a competitive business in violation of the obligation which he had assumed, plaintiff had the right to an injunction, and the defendant had not the legal right to tender, for the purpose of having the injunction dissolved, issues as to whether he had been properly or improperly discharged, and that the resulting effect would be, ipso facto, to absolve him from his obligation not to engage in business. Those issues would have to be tendered and adjudicated upon in other proceedings, and defendant’s rights in that respect were reserved.</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>