Legal Opinion

Oliver M. Farrand Co. v. Farrand

New York Supreme Court

Decided February 15, 1914PublishedCited by 1 opinion

The nature of the action and the material facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtErlanger, J.

The action proceeds upon an alleged violation by the defendant of a covenant entered into by him upon the sale of his retail jewelry business to the plaintiff’s asignor, F. W. Barthman, Jr., in the following words: “And it is further agreed on the part of the party of the first part that in consideration hereof he will not engage directly or indirectly in the retail jewelry business in any form in the City of New York for five years after he shall have finally left the employment * * * with the party of the second part or his assigns.” In brief, the case for the plaintiff rests upon the claim…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Von Bremen v. . MacMonniesNew York Court of Appeals · 1910
  2. Greenfield v. . GilmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1893
  3. Sander v. . HoffmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1876
  4. Broadbooks v. TollesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1906
  5. Niles v. FennThe Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo · 1895

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Julius Bien Co. v. FranklinNew York Supreme Court · 1914

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API