Hyperlawhypertext legal database Kates v. Bok 126 N.Y.S. 606

← Cases

Kates v. Bok

126 N.Y.S. 606 Court N.Y. App. Div. Decision date 1910-12-23 English

Contents

Majority

p. 606
KATES v. BOK et al.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
December 23, 1910.)

Headnote

Pabtnekship (§ 310[1] )—Dissolution—Good Will.
A partnership, which would have expired by limitation June 30, 1906, was dissolved by agreement on May 30,1906; the firm business and property and good will being transferred to plaintiff. Defendant thereafter associated with him a person who had been in the employment of the former firm, and they together established a competing business. Held, that plaintiff was entitled to an injunction restraining defendants from soliciting the customers of the old firm.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Partnership, Cent. Dig. § 712; Dec. Dig. § 310.*]
On rehearing. Reargument of appeal by defendants from an or'der entered continuing in part an injunction and from an order denying a motion for reargument, and by plaintiff from so much of said order as vacates another order and denies a motion to continue said order during pendency of the action.
Order appealed from affirihed, :and the order denying motion for rehearing, from which defendant appeals, affirmed.
For former opinion, see 139 App. Div. 640 , 124 N. Y. Supp. 297 .
See, also, 126 N. Y. Supp. 1133 .
Argued before INGRAHAM, P. J., and CLARKE, SCOTT, MILLER, and DOWLING, JJ.

On' the former argument of this appeal „we declined to restrain defendants from soliciting the customers of the old firm, following in that respect Von Bremen v. Macmonnies, 138 App. Div. 319 , 122 N. Y. Supp. 1087 . The Court of Appeals has now reversed the order in the Von Bremen Case, in so far as it" failed to enjoin the defendant therein from soliciting the customers of his formen firm ( 200 N. Y. 41 , 93 N. E. 186 ), and has in this respect gone the full length of Trego v. Hunt, L. R. 1896 App. Cas. 7, upon which plaintiff relied in his argument before us. Under this most recent authoritative declaration of the law .of this state the plaintiff is entitled to the relief which was denied him upon our former decision.

The order appealed from, with the modification in plaintiff’s favor granted upon the former argument, must therefore be affirmed, and, as the plaintiff has been wholly successful, he is entitled to $10 costs and the disbursements of the appeal.

The order denying a motion for a rehearing, from which defendant appeals, is affirmed, with $10 costs.

Settle order on notice.

Cases cited