142 S.E.2d 800
22900.Supreme Court of Georgia.SUBMITTED APRIL 13, 1965.
DECIDED MAY 6, 1965. REHEARING DENIED MAY 18, 1965.
HEAD, Presiding Justice.
With reference to consideration, the contract recites: “In consideration therefor, Company shall open the coin boxes of such equipment weekly at which time Company shall receive the first $ , and, thereafter, any remaining moneys shall be divided equally between Company and Proprietor.” Under the rulings of this court in George v. Cigarettes Service Corp., 219 Ga. 189 (132 S.E.2d 80), the contract by its terms is too uncertain, vague, and indefinite to authorize the grant of the relief sought, or any relief. The defendant’s general demurrers were properly sustained.
Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.
SUBMITTED APRIL 13, 1965 — DECIDED MAY 6, 1965 — REHEARING DENIED MAY 18, 1965.
Injunction. DeKalb Superior Court. Before Judge Guess.
Carpenter Karp, A. Tate Conyers, Harold Karp, for plaintiff in error.
Madison Richardson, contra.
A A Music Service, Inc., filed its petition against Robert L. Walker. It was alleged: On May 6, 1964, the plaintiff and the defendant entered into a contract, a copy of which is attached, whereby the plaintiff was granted the exclusive right to install coin operated machines in the defendant’s place of business. Since on or about September 16, 1964, the defendant has refused to permit the plaintiff to maintain and operate its machines and has requested Sparks Specialty Company, doing business as Dogwood Music, a corporation, to place its machines, similar to those of the plaintiff, in the defendant’s place of business in lieu of the plaintiff’s machines, which have been disconnected and are not being used. Prior to the breach of the contract by the defendant the plaintiff complied with the terms of the contract, and has remained ready, able and willing to comply therewith. The plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law in that damages resulting from the breach are highly speculative. The defendant should be temporarily restrained and permanently enjoined “from continuing to refuse plaintiff the right of maintaining and operating its machines in defendant’s place of business, as set forth in said agreement, Exhibit `A,’ and the defendant should be
further restrained and permanently enjoined from permitting said Sparks Specialty Company to keep its machines and operate the same in defendant’s place of business …” The prayers were for process; rule nisi; that the defendant be temporarily restrained and permanently enjoined from violating the terms of the contract; and for other relief.
The defendant’s general demurrers were sustained and the exception is to this judgment.