Lowenbein v. Fuldner — 50 N.Y. St. Rep. 520

Majority

p. 520

David Lowenbein et al., Resp'ts, v. Henry Fuldner, App'lt.

(New York Superior Court,

General Term,

Filed January 3, 1893.)

Headnote

Contract—Public Policy—Restriction as to manufacture.

A provision in a contract for the manufacture of an article of merchandise according to a special and unique design, furnished by one of the parties thereto, prohibiting the manufacture of such article for other persons, is not against public policy, and may be enforced by injunction.

. Appeal by defendant from interlocutory judgment and final judgment restraining him from making, selling or otherwise dealing in a certain sideboard.

Abram Kling, for appl’t;

Solon P. Rothschild (Otto E'orwitz, of counsel), for resp’ts.

The action is brought to enjoin the violation by the defendant of the stipulations of a contract made between the parties whereby the defendant engaged to manufacture for the plaintiffs, and-not otherwise, a certain article of merchandise known as a sideboard of a certain character.and description according to a special and unique design and certain working drawings furnished by the plaintiffs.

The restriction imposed by the contract upon the defendant is a reasonable one, and there is nothing in it which is against public policy. At the trial the plaintiffs brought their case fully within the principle of the decision of Saltus v. Belford Co., 133 N. Y.,

p. 521

499 ; 45 St. Rep., 872 ; and also satisfactorily showed that the common law affords them no adequate remedy against the violations, actual and threatened, of the contract by the defendant.

Upon the whole case the equitable interposition of the court is fully justified and the defendant stands properly enjoined.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

McAdam and Gildersleeve, JJ., concur.