# Brown v. Williams

> Supreme Court of Georgia · August 20, 1928 · 166 Ga. 804

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5587014

## Case

- **Full name:** BROWN v. WILLIAMS
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Georgia
- **Decided:** August 20, 1928
- **Citations:** 166 Ga. 804; 144 S.E. 256; 1928 Ga. LEXIS 409
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court by Atkinson
- **Judges:** Atkinson
- **Cited by:** 5 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5587014

## Opinion text

Atkinson, J.
1. A contract “in general in restraint of trade” is against the policy of the law, and can not be enforced. Civil Code (1910), § 4253. It has been held by this court that a stipulation in a contract of sale of a ticket broker’s business, that the ■ vendor will not engage in a similar business in a named city, which, though unlimited as to time, is in all other respects reasonable, is valid and enforceable. Swanson v. Kirby, 98 Ga. 586 ( 26 S. E. 71 ). It has also been held that where the restraint or inhibition relates to the right of a person to follow a particular profession, and deprives the person from practicing his profession under any and all circumstances for all time in a restricted territory, the stipulation is unreasonable and unenforceable. Rakestraw v. Lanier, 104 Ga. 188, 202 ( 30 S. E. 735 , 69 Am. St. R. 154 ). The principle last above stated will apply where the restriction relates to the right of a barber to carry on his vocation and inhibits him within a named town from carrying on his vocation for all time and under all circumstances.
2. A petition alleged that the plaintiff purchased from the defendant “all of the equipment owned by him in the operation of a barber-shop in the town of Wadley, . . together with the good will of said business” for a stated sum, and that, as a part of the trade and an inducement to petitioner to buy, there “was a mutual agreement between plaintiff and defendant, that defendant after selling out to plaintiff would not again operate a barber-shop in the town of Wadley.” The foregoing allegations are to be construed most strongly against the pleader. When so construed, they mean that the defendant was a barber, and that he had stipulated not to engage in his occupation as a barber in the town of Wadley under any circumstances at any time in the future. The alleged covenant was therefore unreasonable and void; and the judge did not err in sustaining the general demurrer to the petition filed by the plaintiff, seeking injunction to prevent continued violation of *806 the covenant, and to recover damages already accrued from its breach. Judgment affirmed.
All the Justices concur.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5587014. Public record. Not legal advice.