Srolowitz v. Roseman

Citations

• 263 Pa. 588
• 107 A. 322
• 1919 Pa. LEXIS 484

Syllabus

<p>Contract — Restraint of trade — Employee not to engage in same business after termination of employment — Limitation as to time and territory — Enforcibility—Equity.</p> <p>1. A contract of employment providing that the employee will not for a period of one year after the termination of the employment, enter into a similar line of business, nor enter into the employ of anyone engaged in a similar business within a city named, is founded upon a valuable consideration, and, being limited both, as to time and territory, is such a partial restraint of trade that it will be enforced by a court of equity.</p> <p>Contract — Construction—Liquidated damages — Penalty.</p> <p>2. The sum of $500 stipulated “as liquidated damages” in case an employee should enter into similar business within one year after the termination of his employment, must be held to be a penalty, and not liquidated damages.</p> <p>Equity — Injunction—Breach of contract not to engage in similar business — Penalty—Adequate remedy at law.</p> <p>3. In such a case, the mere fact that the contract provided for a penalty of $500 in case the employee should engage in similar business after the termination of his employment, does not oust the jurisdiction of a court of equity to enforce the contract.</p>