Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

41 Pa. Super. 491

Ebert v. Kaufmann

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 3, 1910

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · decided 1910-03-03

Appeal, No. 25, Oct. T., 1909, by plaintiff, from decree of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1907, No. 3,872, dismissing bill in equity in case of Carl Ebert v. William Kaufmann. Bill in equity for an injunction. Moschzisker, J., found the facts to be as follows. 1. William Kaufmann for several years carried on the business of a baker, caterer, confectioner and ice cream dealer at No. 8103 Frankford avenue, in the city of Philadelphia. 2.

Affirmed · Decided 1910-03-03

¶1Opinion by

Orlady, J.,

¶2The defendant conducted a business of baker, caterer, confectioner and ice cream dealer, and on May 18, 1905, sold his general business to Louis Ebert and gave the following receipt: “Philadelphia, Pa., May 18, 1905. Received of Mr. Louis Ebert of Philadelphia $3500., $3000 cash, and $500. on three months’ note, for good will and fixtures, horses and wagons and everything on premises 8103 Frankford Ave., belonging to a steam bakery, confectionery, ice cream and catering business, and I hereby bind myself under penalty of $5000 not to engage in the same business within ten years within five miles of the present location. Signed: William Kaufmann.”

¶3Some months thereafter Louis Ebert sold the business purchased as above to his brother Carl Ebert, the complainant in this case. In the spring of 1906, Kaufmann who had removed to 8531 Frankford Ave., commenced to do a catering business and advertised in local newspapers that he was prepared to serve at weddings, receptions, banquets, luncheons, etc. On November 1, 1907, this bill in equity was filed, praying for an injunction to enjoin and restrain Kaufmann from carrying on the catering business and for an accounting. After a demurrer to the bill had been overruled, an answer was filed, testimony was taken, and on final hearing, the bill was dismissed.

¶4We have carefully gone over the testimony and agree fully with the conclusions reached by the court below. The course of business between the parties, the acquiescence and consent by Ebert that Kaufmann should solicit business, and in his effectually aiding him in complying with his contracts, the expenditures incurred by Kaufmann with the knowledge of Ebert in operating the catering business, taken with his delay in asking for equitable relief, fully warranted the court in finding that the plaintiff was chargeable with such laches, *497and that he was estopped from asking the relief prayed for in the bill.

¶5The assignments of error are overruled and the judgment is affirmed.

/41/pasuper/491 · .json · Public domain