Legal Opinion

Langberg v. Wagner

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Decided December 10, 1927PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

For purposes of preliminary restraint it must be assumed that defendant is only an employe of the competing firm named in his answer, and that his entire activities consist of window washing for that firm. This raises the inquiry whether defendant's covenant embraces that employment.

I am unable to doubt that this inquiry must be answered in the affirmative. A negative answer can only be had by reading into the covenant the words "as principal," whereas the language used more nearly excludes that limitation and the circumstances of the case clearly forbid qualification of that nature.

The…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. A. Fink Sons v. GoldbergNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1927
  2. Pohlman v. DawsonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1901
  3. Trenton Potteries Co. v. OliphantNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1898

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. St. Patrick's Church Corporation v. DanielsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1931
  2. Burr v. RagoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1935
  3. General Baking Co. v. SolesCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1932
  4. Nisonoff v. CerebeNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1948
  5. McClure v. YoungSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1936

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API