Appeals, Nos. 87 and 100, March T., 1955, from order of Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Jan. T., 1955, in Equity, No. 1586, in case of Seligman & Latz of Pittsburgh, Inc. v. Michael T. Vernillo and Lenore A. Lloyd, trading as Salon Plaza. Decree as modified affirmed; reargument refused June 27, 1955.
John A. Metz, Jr., with him Henry Mustin and Metz, McClure, Hanna & MacAlister, for appellants.
Gilbert J. Helwig, with him Reed, Smith, Show & McClay, for appellee.
Before Stern, C.j., Stearne, Jones, Bell, Chidsey, Musmanno and Arnold, JJ.
OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE BELL
Defendants appeal from a preliminary injunction enjoining them from operating a beauty salon in competition with their form operating a beauty salon in competition customers of their former employer in violation of the restrictive covenants of the employment contract they had (respectively) made with plaintiff.
These two appeals were heard and argued as one, since the facts in each case are substantially the same. Lenore Cesarone Lloyd was employed for many years by Seligman & Latz, which was originally a partnership but subsequently incorporated. On November 18, 1949 she signed a contract as employee, party of the third part, with Seligman & Latz, Incorporated, party of the first part, and the plaintiff, Seligman & Latz of Pittsburgh, Inc., their subsidiary, party of the second part. This contract signed in triplicate recited the highly distinctive Antoine methods, technique and styles which parties of the first and second part wished to be preserved for themselves; and in consideration of plaintiff training defendant without expense to her,
and giving her employment at a weekly salary plus the commission specifically set forth therein, defendant agreed to the following pertinent restrictions:
"Third. ... (b) The third party [defendant] agrees that, upon the termination of his employment by the second party [the plaintiff] ... the third party will not ... (2) solicit for himself or for any new employer or new associate in any hairdressing business, any of the customers or patrons of the second party [plaintiff] whether or not the third party [defendant] rendered services to or for such customers or patrons; or (3) designate ... himself ... as an Antoine operator; or (4) refer to in any way that he was formerly employed by the second party for the purpose of enticing customers or patrons of the second party to patronize him or patrons of the second he may then be associated; ... or (7) that he ... will not, for at least one (1) year after such termination, be employed in or be associated with in any way, any beauty or hairdressing establishment or salon, ... which is or may be conducted ... within a radius of one (1) mile from such Antoine salon in which he was employed at the time of such termination."
A substantially similar contract was signed by defendant Vernillo.
Defendants ten days after the termination of their employment by plaintiff began to operate a beauty salon virtually across the street from plaintiff's place of business, and immediately solicited all or plaintiff's customers whose names they could remember, and they admitted remembering most of them. They thereby secured 110 to 130 former customers from the Antoine Salon. These acts ...