Opinion

Benzinger v. Brown

  • 3 Balt. C. Rep. 210
Court
Baltimore City Circuit Court
Filed
Oct 16, 1912
Status
Published
Author
Bond
On the bench
Bond
Cited by
0 cases

The opinion

BOND, J.—

It seems clear from the evidence that the profession of .these two ladies is not one which has practitioners scattered ■ about ¡to supply various neighborhoods. On -the contrary, one practitioner, ■ centrally located, appears to diraw .upon the whole city and a wide región of neighboring country for customers. When the defendant sold her business she intended leaving the state, and having no further business in Baltimore. And it was the intention of the parties, I think, that Mrs. Benziuger should be in such a position that she might represent herself as the successor of Dr. Brown in the business previously enjoyed by Dr. Brown in Baltimore. Any action on Dr. Brown’s part derogating from that right or interfering materially with the benefits which should follow from it is a violation of the contract. If Dr. Brown resumes business in Baltimore, it would. I am persuaded, interfere materially with the business sold to Mrs. Ben-zinger, and so, as a violation of the contract of sale, should be enjoined.

A decree permanently enjoining the defendant from practicing in Baltimore city will accordingly be signed.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.