Mahoney v. Roberts
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court; Edward W. Winfield, Judge; 1. Verdict is not supported by the evidence. The contract was that Mahoney should not enter into said business in competition with Roberts. This means only the same business, for if construed to mean all business, the contract would be void as in restraint of trade. Beach on Monopolies and Ind. Trusts § 37; 71 S. W. Rep. 691, 695; 97 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court; Edward W. Winfield, Judge; 1. Verdict is not supported by the evidence. The contract was that Mahoney should not enter into said business in competition with Roberts. This means only the same business, for if construed to mean all business, the contract would be void as in restraint of trade. Beach on Monopolies and Ind. Trusts § 37; 71 S. W. Rep. 691, 695; 97 Mo. App. 64. 2. In suits for conspiracy the wife is wholly relieved from liability. Fritzherbert, N. B. 116; 44 N. C. '46 2 Munf. 15; 44 Ark. 640. 3 The names of Mrs. Mahoney and Collins should have…
1Opinion of the CourtBattle, J.
Mord Roberts brought this action against J. Mahoney and Emma E. Mahoney, his wife, and E. D. M. Collins. For cause of action he alleged in his complaint: “That on the 26th day of January, 1906, he and the defendant J. Mahoney were doing a partnership business in the city of Argenta, Arkansas, and were engaged in what is commonly known as the concrete and cement work and other kinds of business; that, being unable to agree in the further prosecution of their work as partners, they dissolved the said partnership by mutual consent, making certain divisions -of the partnership property; and in…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Mutual Life Insurance v. HillmonSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Walker v. CroninMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1871
- Doremus v. HennessyIllinois Supreme Court · 1898
- Dailey v. HoustonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1874
- Cassin v. . DelanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1868
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by29 opinions
- Mason v. FunderburkSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1969
- Walt Bennett Ford, Inc. v. Pulaski County Special School DistrictSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1981
- Southern Anthracite Coal Co. v. BowenSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1909
- Mangum Electric Co. v. BorderSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1923
- Benny M. Estes and Associates, Inc. v. Time Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1992
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.