Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

95 Ark. 387

Hampton v. Caldwell

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided June 20, 1910

Supreme Court of Arkansas · decided 1910-06-20

Humphries, Chancellor; It is not enough that the court find that some contract was made, but must find one that is clear, convincing and certain in all its terms. 78 Ark. 160. It takes the same quantity and quality of evidence to procure an injunction restraining the breach of a contract as to enforce specific performance. 120 S. W. 829. The sale of the “good will” does not include a condition that the vendor will not re-enter the same business. 9 L. R. A. TN.

Relies on Bloom v. Home Insurance Agency · Railway Co. v. Whitley · Meyer v. Roberts

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

affirmed · Decided 1910-06-20

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently June 1996

17 state decisions

70191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

McCulloch, C. J.

¶1Defendant, Thomas Hampton, is a barber, and owned and operated a barber shop in the town of Walnut Ridge, and on May 19, 1909, sold out to the plaintiffs, Caldwell & Hall. He claims that he sold to them the shop outfit for the sum of $750, and that there was no other agreement concerning the matter save that of the sale. Plaintiffs claim that he sold them the outfit for $500, and the good will of the business for $250, expressly agreeing not to again go into that business at Walnut Ridge. A few months later he started to open another shop at that place, and they instituted this action in the chancery court to restrain him from violating the alleged contract.

¶2Such a contract is reasonable and enforcible, and a court of equity will restrain its breach. Bloom v. Home Insurance Agency, 91 Ark. 367, and cases cited.

¶3An oral contract of that sort is not within the statute of frauds, for it is not one which, according to its terms, does not admit of performance within a year. The death of the obligor within a year would have brought the contract to an end; therefore, it might have been fully performed within a year. Meyer v. Roberts, 46 Ark. 80; Ry. Co. v. Whitley, 54 Ark. 199; Sullivan v. Winters, 91 Ark. 149; Valley Planting Co. v. Wise, 93 Ark. 1; Lyon v. King, 11 Metc. (Mass.) 411, 45 Am. Dec. 219; Smith on the Law of Fraud, § 347.

¶4The evidence is conflicting; but we think it supports the finding of the chancellor, and is sufficient to warrant a court of equity in restraining a breach of the contract.

¶5Decree affirmed. .

/95/ark/387 · .json · Public domain