A. M. LEWIS
v.
HOLMES KIRKLAND AND MARIE TOWNE, AS RECEIVERS, ET AL.
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.
The Florida Supreme Court reversed a final decree granting a permanent injunction against A. M. Lewis for violating non-solicitation restrictions in an employment contract. The court found that the receivers of a laundry company lacked standing to enforce the restrictive covenants without proper joinder of the partnership members and without establishing that the contract had been vested in the firm.
The court reversed the decree, finding that the receivers lacked standing to enforce the restrictive covenants because they failed to join the individual members of the partnership as parties and failed to demonstrate that the contract had been vested in the firm they represented.
“That the temporary restraining order heretofore issued herein be and the same is hereby made permanent for the period of one year dating from March 12, 1934, and said defendant A. M. Lewis be and he is hereby strictly commanded and ordered during said period to desist and refrain from further soliciting, diverting, receiving or delivering any laundry or dry cleaning from any person or customer of said Towne's Tampa Steam Laundry & Dry Cleaning Company”
The permanent injunction issued by the lower court that was reversed on appeal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA. M. Lewis was employed by Towne's Tampa Steam Laundry & Dry Cleaning Company, which was in receivership. Lewis was accused of breaching prohibitive …
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 Receiver'S Authority cases and more on FLexlaw
The appeal here is from final decree and also from order refusing to dissolve a preliminary injunction and to dismiss the bill of complaint.
The appeal from the final decree is sufficient to bring all other questions of controversy arising prior to that decree before this Court for review.
The final decree found amongst other things that the appellant, Lewis, had breached the prohibitive restrictions of a certain contract of employment after the termination of his employment with the complainant.
The part of the decree granting the injunction is as follows :
“That the temporary restraining order heretofore issued herein be and the same is hereby made permanent for the period of one year dating from March 12, 1934, and said defendant A. M. Lewis be and he is hereby strictly commanded and ordered during said period to desist and refrain from further soliciting, diverting, receiving or delivering any laundry or dry cleaning from any person or *351customer of said Towne’s Tampa Steam Laundry & Dry Cleaning Company now in receivership who had theretofore been solicited or served by said defendant for and on behalf of said receivership, and who reside in that certain territory situate in Hillsborough County, Florida, described as follows: Book 200, Page 18: That part of the City bounded on the North by Cass Street, on the East by Hills-borough River, on the South by Lafayette Street, Grand Central Avenue, Atlantic Coast Line Railway, Morrison Avenue and Swann Avenue, and on the West by Lois Avenue; and the failure of said defendant to comply with the terms and conditions aforesaid shall be a direct contempt of the order of this Court.”
The controlling features of this case are like those involved in the case of Love, et al., v. Miami Laundry Company, decided on rehearing at this Term of the Court. It is, therefore, unnecessary for us to discuss other questions which are raised in this case and were not presented in the Love case. One of those questions is:
“May a Receiver of a co-partnership sue in its trade name to enforce the restrictive covenants of a contract of employment between the firm and an employee without joining as parties thereto the individual members of the firm?”
The other is:
“May a Receiver of a co-partnership maintain a suit to enforce the restrictive covenants of a contract of employment to which neither the Receiver nor the firm they represent are parties without showing a vesting of such contract in the firm the Receivers represent?”
The decree appealed from shoud be reversed with directions that the bill of complaint be dismissed on authority of the opinion and judgment in the case of Love, et al., v. Miami Laundry Company, supra.
*352It is so ordered.
Reversed.
Ellis, P. J., and Terrell, J., concur.
Wi-iitfield, C. J., and Brown and Davis, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Arond v. Grossman, 75 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 1954)…he refusal of injunctive relief in cases involving 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 r…
-
Lyon v. S. Laundry, Inc., 142 Fla. 79 (Fla. 1940)…Inc.” The only material difference between the factual conditions of this case and those existing in Lowe, et al., v. Miami Laundry Co., 118 Fla. 137, 160 So. 32; Nettles v City Ice & Fuel Co., 118 Fla. 345, 160 Sou. 42; Lewis v. Kirkland, et al., 118 Fla. 350, 160 Sou. 44, and Schaeffer, Inc., v. Hoppen, 127 Fla. 703, 173 Sou. 900, is that in the [*83] cited cases the complainant in the court below relied on an executory contract, while in the instant case complainant relies on a rule promulgated by an a…
-
Tasty Box Lunch Co. Inc. v. Kennedy, 16 Fla. Supp. 1 (Dade Cty. Cir. Ct. 1960)…nd that a court of equity would refuse to enjoin the 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 r…