Legal Opinion

Callahan v. Donnolly

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1872No. 3,103PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco. On the 13th of September, 1864, Thomas Donnolly, T. C. Donnolly, and one Landsberger, comprising the firm of Donnolly & Co., sold to the plaintiff for seventeen thousand and eighty-five dollars the business of manufacturing “Donnolly’s Yeast Powder,” and entered into his employment, agreeing that for eight years they would not engage in the manufacture of “Donnolly’s Yeast…

Read the full summary

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco. On the 13th of September, 1864, Thomas Donnolly, T. C. Donnolly, and one Landsberger, comprising the firm of Donnolly & Co., sold to the plaintiff for seventeen thousand and eighty-five dollars the business of manufacturing “Donnolly’s Yeast Powder,” and entered into his employment, agreeing that for eight years they would not engage in the manufacture of “Donnolly’s Yeast Powder,” nor in any branch of the business. They were to receive for their services a certain percentage of the profits of…

1Opinion of the Court

By the Court:

The contract which provides that the Donnollys will not engage in the manufacture of “ Donnolly’s Yeast Powders,” nor in any branch of the yeast powder business, is in the latter clause plainly in restraint of trade, and therefore void. (Wright v. Ryder, 36 Cal. 357; More v. Bonnet, 40 Cal. 251.)

It does not appear that the Donnollys are manufacturing “ Donnolly’s Yeast Powders.” A contract in restraint of *154trade, and which is not by its terms limited as to the territory embraced in its operation, is not to be supported. “It is to be remembered, however (said Tindal, C. J., in…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Wright v. RyderCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868
  2. More v. BonnetCalifornia Supreme Court · 1870

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. City Carpet Beating Etc. Works v. JonesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
  2. Texas Standard Oil Co. v. AdoueTexas Supreme Court · 1892
  3. Boughton v. Socony Mobil Oil Co.California Court of Appeal · 1964
  4. Ford v. GregsonMontana Supreme Court · 1887
  5. Cavasso v. DowneyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919

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

Powered by the Exa API