HARVEY C. WHEELER, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME OF MIAMI TOWEL SUPPLY CO.,
v.
CASPER C. MICKLES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Wheeler sought enforcement of a non-compete covenant against his former employee Mickles. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's dismissal of the complaint, holding that the non-compete agreement was unenforceable under principles established in a related case.
The court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, holding that the non-compete agreement was unenforceable. The court relied on precedent established in Love v. Miami Laundry Company regarding the enforceability standards for non-compete covenants in employment contracts.
“The said Casper C. Mickles hereby agrees to perform all duties promptly as he may be desired to do by the said Harvey C. Wheeler, or his representative, and he also agrees for the consideration aforesaid that he will not engage in the same business as that carried on by the said Harvey C. Wheeler, Towel Supply or Apron Supply, either as Proprietor, Canvasser, partner, or employee, directly or indirectly, for the period of two years after ceasing, for any reason whatever, to be in the employ of the said Harvey C. Wheeler”
States the non-compete covenant that Wheeler sought to enforce against Mickles
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWheeler employed Mickles at a salary of $22.50 per week under an employment contract dated April 7, 1930. The contract contained a non-compete clause …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Employment Contract Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
case is like that of Love, et al., v. Miami Laundry Company.
The appeal is from order denying leave to amend and from order vacating final decree in favor of the complainant and dismissing the bill of complaint.
The contract in this case was not signed by Wheeler doing business under the name of Miami Towel Supply Com*349pany, but was only signed by Mickles and was in the following language:
“This agreement made the April 7th, 1930, between Harvey C. Wheeler, proprietor of the Miami Towel Sup. Co., and Casper C. Mickles.
“The said Harvey C. Wheeler hereby agrees to employ the said Casper C. Mickles at a salary of $22.50 dollars per week, and the said Casper C. Mickles hereby agrees to perform all duties promptly as he may be desired to do by the said Harvey C. Wheeler, or his representative, and he also agrees for the consideration aforesaid that he will not engage in the same business as that carried on by the said Harvey C. Wheeler, Towel Supply or Apron Supply, either as Proprietor, Canvasser, partner, or employee, directly or indirectly, for the period of two years after ceasing, for any reason whatever, to be in the employ of the said Harvey C. Wheeler, except outside the Cities of Miami, Ft. Lauder-dale, Hollywood, W. P. Beach, Lake Worth and Vero Beach, in State of Florida.
“In Witness Whereof, the party heretofore mentioned have set their hand on the day and date above written.
“(Sign Name Here.)
“Casper C. Mickles/'’
For the reasons stated in the opinion in the case of Love, et al, v. Miami Laundry Company on rehearing granted, filed at this Term of the Court, the order appealed from should be sustained and affirmed. ’ ,
It is so ordered.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, C. J., and Ellis, Terrell, Brown, Buford and Davis, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Arond v. Grossman, 75 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 1954)…ving the enforcement of restrictive covenants in contracts of employment. Love v. Miami Laundry Co., 118 Fla. 137, 160 So. 32; J. Schaeffer, Inc., v. Hoppen, 127 Fla. 703, 173 So. 900; Lewis v. Kirkland, 118 Fla. 350, 160 So. 44; Wheeler v. Mickles, 118 Fla. 348, 160 So. 45; Nettles v. City Ice & Fuel Co., 118 Fla. 345, 160 So. 42. There is mutuality of remedies arising from the stockholders’ agreement and there are special equities arising from the fiduciary relationship between the corporation and its of…
-
Tasty Box Lunch Co. Inc. v. Kennedy, 16 Fla. Supp. 1 (Dade Cty. Cir. Ct. 1960)…he employees from violating the provision of the contract prohibiting them from driving a truck for a competitor. See also Nettles v. City Ice & Fuel Co., 118 Fla. 345, 160 So. 42; Lewis v. Kirkland, 118 Fla. 350, 160 So. 44; and Wheeler v. Mickles, 118 Fla. 348, 160 So. 45. All of the above cases were decided prior to the passage of the present statute. The same is true of United Loan Corp. of Tampa v. Weddle (1955), 77 So. 2d 629, where the court denied relief to a finance company seeking to enjoin an ex…