The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P, a master horseshoer with some 15-years' experience, employed D as an apprentice horseshoer. The parties signed a written contract wherein P agreed to teach D the art of horseshoeing. P agreed that for a period of five years from and after the time he shall leave the first party employer, either if by resignation or by discharge, that he shall not engage directly or indirectly in any business or enterprise the nature of which is competitive to the employers business, that is to say, he shall not engage in the practice of Horseshoeing or Blacksmithing, within a radius of one hundred (100) miles from the Oakwood Horseshoeing. In the event of a breach of the agreement not to compete, the contract allowed D to be enjoined by a court of equity from engaging in the trade of horseshoeing in the territory and during the time covered by the agreement. During the 2 years he worked for P, D progressed rapidly from the apprenticeship stage. D was shoeing the horses of a substantial number of P's customers and D became the only contact P had with many of his customers, and these customers gained confidence in D's ability as a horseshoer. D terminated his employment in March 1964 and immediately set up his own horseshoeing business 5 miles distance from Spanaway. D secured a substantial number of P's customers. P sued D to enjoin D from engaging in horseshoeing in violation of the agreement. The court dismissed the case finding that it was unreasonable to restrict D from engaging in horseshoeing within a radius of 100 miles. P appealed.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.