
    HICKS’ APPEAL.
    Where a man selling his business agrees that his name shall not be used in the same business, equity will restrain the violation of such agreement.
    Appeal from Common Pleas No. 1 of Philadelphia. In Equity No. 219, January Term, 1882.
    
      By an agreement, under seal, dated February IS, 18S1., William Pabst, one of the defendants below, for the consideration of $5,500, sold to Edward Furniss,. the appellee, his business of manufacturing and dealing in Brittania and silver-plated ware, at No. 611. Sansom street and No. 618 Chestnut street, Philadelphia, and! covenanted that he would not thereafter carry on in his own name, or for himself, or in the name of any other person or.' persons or corporation within the limits of the City of Philadelphia, the said business of manufacturing or dealing in sucln wares. The last clause of the agreement is as follows :
    “And that I will not allow, suffer or permit any person:, persons or corporation ‘to use my name in connection with* said business or any part thereof,’ within the limits of sai(F city and County of Philadelphia, provided, however, that nothing herein contained shall be construed to prevent or hinder me from working as a mechanic or artisan in said business.” Shortly after the sale, Pabst, together with Hicky" and Hecker, the appellants, who had been in the appellee’semploy, undertook to carry on the business of manufacturing: and dealing in Brittania and silver-plated ware, under til© name of The Brittania Metal Works, at 925 Filbert street. They conspicuously displayed signs with the names of all the-defendants, but after the name of William Pabst was inserted the word “manager.” Their billheads and cards were printeck in the same way. The appellants had little interest in the-business, and they now claim that Caroline Pabst, the wife of ■ the other defendant, is the real owner thereof. The appelleefiled a bill in equity in the court below, to restrain Pabst from, violating his covenant, and to restrain Hicks and Hecker from?, carrying on the business in connection with Pabst, and from-employing him and holding him out as manager. The court, below granted a special injunction, after hearing, and th©defendants, Hicks and Hecker took this appeal.
    D. B. Meaney and E. It. Worrell, Esqs., for appellants,,,
    argued that the bill should have been against Papst alone. There was an adequate remedy at law : Gompers vs. Rochester, 56 Pa. 194 ; Harkinson’s Appeal, 78 Pa. 196.
    
      L. C. Massey, Esq., contra, argued that the appellants are properly joined as defendants:
    Barfield vs. Nicholson, 2 Simon & S. 1; Stiff vs. Cassell, 2 Jurist N. S. 348; Dales vs. Webber, 18 Weekly Reporter 993. The injury is a continuing one, and equity has jurisdiction; McClurg’s Appeal, 58 Pa. 51.
   The Supreme Court affirmed the decree of the Common Pleas on April 2, 1882, in the following opinion :

Per Curiam.

This being a preliminary injunction, according to our established practice we express no opinion upon the merits.

Decree affirmed and appeal dismissed at the costs of the appellants.  