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

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

All of the parties to this action are doctors, and prior to March 31, 1954, they were associated together in a medical partnership known as the Kankakee Clinic. D withdrew from the partnership, and in May of 1954, he opened offices for the practice of medicine and surgery in the city of Kankakee. Five of the eleven remaining partners instituted this action seeking an injunction to restrain D from violating the agreement. The other six remaining partners were joined as defendants. D admitted the allegations of the complaint, but defended on the ground that the partnership agreement contemplated that a withdrawing partner had the alternative right to perform the agreement or to pay liquidated damages. The circuit court entered a decree dismissing the complaint. The Appellate Court reversed. The partnership agreement provides that the interest of an individual partner may be terminated by retirement based on physical incapacity, by voluntary withdrawal, or by expulsion for unprofessional conduct or for failure to carry out the provisions of the agreement. The remaining partners are to purchase the interest of the outgoing partner at a stated percentage of its value as shown on the partnership books: 100 per cent in case of retirement for incapacity, 80 per cent in case of voluntary withdrawal, and 75 per cent in case of expulsion. Each partner covenanted that after the termination of his interest, he will not engage in the practice of medicine, surgery, or radiology within a radius of 25 miles of Kankakee for a period of five years. The agreement provides that if the former partner violates the covenant, he shall forfeit any unpaid portion of the purchase price of his interest. At the time of his withdrawal from the firm, D was paid 40 per cent of the value of his partnership interest, and a note for the remaining 40 per cent was turned over to an escrow agent in accordance with the agreement. D admitted to a violation of the contract but claimed the agreement is an unreasonable restraint of trade and contrary to public policy, and because it contains a provision for liquidated damages that bars specific enforcement.

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

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