find, that I think sheds some significant light on the
question of what is meant by agents of one who is enjoined.

And the inquiry which is obviously mandated by
this case, which is at present -— it looks like Mr. Howd
may have it. I apologize, Your Honor. I will try to find
it for you and send it to you. What it stands for is the
principle -- and I may find it when I sit down during the
rebuttal; and if so, I will give it to you.

It involves a Rent-a-Car company, and the issue
was whether or not the injunction that prohibited the
Rent-a-Car company from using the broadcast system in the
airport to pick up its passengers in violation of a
noncompete agreement also prohibited the airport itself
from paging passengers, from saying, “Mr. Penick, your cab
is at the curb,” or, “Mr. Penick, your car is ready,” when
it was this enjoined company’s automobile that was being
presented.

And the appellate court held, no, obviously,
that language about extension of the terms of the
injunction to the agents of the person who is named and
enjoined extends to persons who are agents for the purposes
of the act that is enjoined.

Now, you can rent cars by proxy. You can
announce the rental of cars by proxy. Mr. Minton, whatever
else he’s able to do, is not able to exercise his First