
    Madson, Respondent, vs. Johnson, Appellant.
    
      December 5, 1916
    
    January 16, 1917.
    
    
      Contracts: Validity: Restraining practice of profession in certain territory.
    
    1. Contracts imposing reasonable restraint upon the right to exercise one’s calling, trade, or profession are valid.
    2. A contract by which defendant, upon selling to plaintiff his real estate, office fixtures, and good will as a veterinarian, agreed that he would not practice that profession “in Appleton 'or vicinity” unless he purchased plaintiff’s veterinary practice or entered into a partnership with him, imposed only a reasonable restraint and was valid.
    Appeal from an order of the circuit court for Outagamie county: Edgab V. Webster, Circuit Judge.
    
      Affirmed.
    
    This action is brought by the plaintiff to enjoin the defendant from continuing his practice of veterinary medicine and surgery in the city of Appleton and vicinity and for the recovery of $1,000 as damages.
    Both plaintiff and defendant are licensed practitioners of veterinary medicine and surgery. Tbe defendant was a successful practitioner at Appleton, Wisconsin, and on March 31, 1914, be sold bis real estate, office fixtures, and good will as such veterinarian to tbe plaintiff. Tbe plaintiff paid tbe defendant $4,500 therefor and received from defendant a bill of sale conveying tbe property as agreed. Tbe bill of sale contains tbe following provision:
    “Further it includes my good will, and further that I will not practice veterinary medicine or surgery in Appleton, or vicinity, unless it would be to be in partnership with said Dr. William Madson, or to buy out tbe said above mentioned Dr. William Madson.”
    
    On or about March 10, 1915, tbe defendant again opened an office in tbe city of Appleton, Wisconsin, and began tbe practice of veterinary medicine and surgery. Tbe plaintiff brings this action, alleging a violation of tbe agreement, and asked that defendant be restrained from practicing bis profession in Appleton or vicinity.
    Tbe defendant demurred to tbe complaint and tbe circuit court overruled tbe demurrer. From tbe order overruling the demurrer this appeal is taken.
    For tbe appellant there was a brief by Ryan, Gary & Frank, and oral argument by T. H. Ryan.
    
    For tbe respondent there was a brief by Morgan & Benton, and oral argument by John Morgan.
    
   Siebeceeb, J.

It is well established that contracts imposing reasonable restraint upon tbe right to exercise one’s calling, trade, or profession are valid. This doctrine has been applied and upheld in this state under the varying facts and circumstances disclosed by the following eases: Fairbank v. Leary, 40 Wis. 637; Washburn v. Dosch, 68 Wis. 436, 32 N. W. 551; Richards v. American D. & S. Co. 87 Wis. 503, 58 N. W. 787; Palmer v. Toms, 96 Wis. 367, 71 N. W. 654; Tecktonius v. Scott, 110 Wis. 441, 86 N. W. 672; Cottington v. Swan, 128 Wis. 321, 107 N. W. 336; My Laundry Co. v. Schmeling, 129 Wis. 597, 109 N. W. 540.

Tbe terms of tbe agreement of these parties restrain defendant from practicing bis profession in “Appleton or vicinity” unless be enters into partnership with tbe plaintiff for that purpose or purchases plaintiff’s professional business. Tbe significance of tbe word “vicinity” in such contract is to be ascertained from tbe intent of tbe parties to tbe contract in tbe light of tbe facts and circumstances of tbe transaction. Burton v. Douglass, 141 Wis. 110, 123 N. W. 631. It appears that tbe defendant reopened tbe practice of bis profession in tbe city of Appleton, which is specifically forbidden by tbe contract. Courts have sustained as valid agreements of this kind without limitation as to time in specified localities. See agreements in restraint of trade, 9 Cyc. 527, paragraph (4) and note, Restraint Limited as to Space but Unlimited as to Time; also 6 Ruling Case Law, sec. 205. Tbe restraint in this agreement to tbe effect that defendant was not to practice bis profession or calling in “Appleton or vicinity” is reasonable and valid within tbe doctrine adhered to in tbe adjudications of this and other states.

By the GouH. — Tbe order appealed from is affirmed.  