Legal Opinion
City Carpet Beating Etc. Works v. Jones
California Supreme Court
Decided May 26, 1894No. 15300PublishedCited by 40 opinions
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, and from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Haynes, C.
On June 6, 1887, appellant was engaged in the business of cleaning and renovating carpets at a *509designated place on Eighth street in the city of San Francisco, and on that day sold his buildings, machinery, and all appliances, and the goodwill of said business to one Eeamer.
In the contract of sale the following covenant was inserted:
“ And in order to secure and protect said party of the second part in the full, free, and undisturbed use and enjoyment of the said goodwill, the party of the first part hereby promises and agrees that he will not, for and during the period of ten years…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Santa Clara Valley Mill and Lumber Co. v. HayesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- Vulcan Powder Co. v. Hercules Powder Co.California Supreme Court · 1892
- Brown v. KlingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- Wright v. RyderCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868
- More v. BonnetCalifornia Supreme Court · 1870
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by40 opinions
- Swenson v. FileCalifornia Supreme Court · 1970
- Monogram Industries, Inc. v. Sar Industries, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1976
- General Paint Corp. v. SeymourCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932
- Lien v. Northwestern Engineering Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1949
- Mahlstedt v. FugitCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1947
35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.