Crownfield v. Phillips

Constable, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This appeal grows out of the refusal of the Court below to issue an injunction forthwith, upon a petition filed by Albert C. Crownfield, in the cause of Howard M. Phillips and Amy G. Phillips v. Albert C. Crownfield, 124 Md. 443 . The petition sets out the facts which were alleged in the bill and answer in the original proceedings, which need not he repeated here, since they are quite fully set forth in the opinion filed in that appeal; and in addition alleges that the complainants, after the dissolution of the injunction by the lower Court, took an appeal from the decree and filed an appeal bond, thereby staying the Operation of the decree; and thus, have been enabled to keep in possession of the property in controversy for a great length of time, through their delay in prosecuting this appeal. It was further alleged that the complainants, after the decree adverse to them, and after this appeal from the same, leased a storeroom on the same floor of the building in which the partnership business of the parties was carried on, and are therein conducting a business similar to, and in competition with, the partnership business.

The petition states the objects of the petition to be (first) to have the Court exercise the discretion granted to it by section 29 of Article 5 of the Code, and pass an order directing that the appeal shall not stay the operation of the ³ decree; (secondly), that the complainants may he enjoined from carrying on the business they have opened, in competition with the partnership business. The Court refused on the petition and affidavit to issue an order annulling the usual effect of an appeal, and also refused to grant a peremptory injunction, but passed an order directing the complainants to show cause. From said last mentioned order, this appeal was taken. This Court has no power to review the refusal of the lower Court to annul the effect of the appeal, for it is a matter that is expressly left, by the statutes, to the discretion of the Court where the proceedings are pending.

Washington County v. School Commissioners, 77 Md. 292 . The only question presented to ns for determination is whether the lower Court was correct in not ordering an injunction to issue immediately, but allowing the complainants time to show cause before acting upon the allegations. The rule of law is universal, that a partner, without the consent of his co-partners, cannot carry on a business of the same nature and competing with that of the firm. If this rule is violated, equity may enjoin him from doing so; and some jurisdictions have held that he may be compelled to account and pay over to the firm all profits thus made.

Christian Grocery Co. v. Hill, 122 Ala. 490 ; Grafton v. Paine, 7 App. Cases, 255; Tichnor v. Newman, 186 Ill. 264 ; Metcalfe v. Bradshaw, 145 Ill. 124 ; Lockwood v. Beckwith, 6 Mich. 168 ; American Bank Note Co. v. Edson. 56 Baro. 84; Marshall v. Johnson, 33 Ga. 500 ; Van Deusen v. Crispell, 114 N. Y. App. Div. 361; Manuf.