Legal Opinion
Cephas v. Doebler, Jr.
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided November 21, 1892PublishedCited by 7 opinions
Hartford Dist., Oct. T., 1892. Andrews, C. J., Carpenter, Seymour, Torrance and Fenn, Js. Shit for an injunction; brought to the City Court of the city of Hartford, and heard before Markham, J. Facts found and judgment rendered for the plaintiff, and appeal by the defendant. The case is fully stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtAndrews, C. J.
The plaintiff and defendant in June, 1890, entered into a contract for the lease of certain rooms in the city of Hartford and the practicing of dentistry therein, the eighth paragraph of which contained these clauses :—
“ And the said Doebler, in consideration of the premises, does further covenant and agree to and with the said Dills, that he, the said Doebler, will not, at any time within ten years after the termination of this contract, engage in or carry on directly or indirectly within the limits of fifteen miles of said Hartford, the business or profession of a dentist, or any branch of…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Ropes v. UptonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1878
- Shiell v. M'NittNew York Court of Chancery · 1841
- Skinner v. DaytonNew York Court of Chancery · 1817
- Akrill v. SeldenNew York Supreme Court · 1847
3Cited by7 opinions
- Aetna Life Insurance v. RichmondSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1927
- Peru Wheel Co. v. Union Coal Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1938
- Geo. E. Warren Co. v. A. L. Black Coal Co.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1920
- Dejon v. StreetSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1906
- Pennsylvania Oil Co. v. AndrewWisconsin Supreme Court · 1939
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.