Berger & Yeiser v. Armstrong
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from, Tama District Cowrt. The plaintiffs state in their petition-: 1st. That on or about December 27th, 1871, defendant sold to plaintiffs his drug store in Toledo, Iowa, upon a written contract of sale, in which, among the other things, the defend-' ant agreed, as a part of the consideration of said sale, that he would not again enter or go into the same branch of business for himself ot others, in the said town of Toledo, without the consent of plaintiffs, and that…
Read the full summary
Appeal from, Tama District Cowrt. The plaintiffs state in their petition-: 1st. That on or about December 27th, 1871, defendant sold to plaintiffs his drug store in Toledo, Iowa, upon a written contract of sale, in which, among the other things, the defend-' ant agreed, as a part of the consideration of said sale, that he would not again enter or go into the same branch of business for himself ot others, in the said town of Toledo, without the consent of plaintiffs, and that he would give his influence and recommend all his old customers to trade with plaintiffs, so far as it might be…
1Opinion of the Court
Miller, Ch. J. —
The only question for our determination is whether the District Court erred in refusing to allow to plaintiff an injunction as prayed in their motion.
*450í practice' injunction. *449The Code (section 3386) provides that in cases of “breach *450of contract, or other injury, where tbe party injured, is enti^ecl to maintain,, .and has brought,'an . action by ordinary proceedings, he may, in the same cause, pray, and have a writ of injunction against the repetition, or continuance of suchbreach of contract, or other injury, or the committal of any breach of contract or injury of a like kind,…
2Cited by3 opinions
- McCurry v. GibsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1895
- State v. MillerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1880
- Shonk Tin Printing Co. v. ShonkIllinois Supreme Court · 1891