« PreviousContinue »
BOROUGH OF BIRMINGHAM.
UEEN INSURANCE COMPANY. MTAE Corporation is prepared to Accept LOANS of
CHIEF OFFICES ; | £100 and upwards, on security of the Local Rates, at £31 per
QUEEN INSURANCE BUILDINGS, LIVERPOOL.
AND cent., repayable at any time on six months' notice, or for poriods of three, four, or five years at £3} per cent. per annum. The Interest
60, GRACECHURCH STREET, LONDON. payable half-yearly.
TWENTY-SECOND ANNUAL REPORT.
The Report and accounts for the year 1879, presented to the Share. Treasurer's Department, The Council House,
holders at the Annual Meeting, on Thursday, 20th May, 1880, at Eden-place, 10th April, 1879.
which Bernard Hall, Esq. (Mayor of Liverpool), presided, showed
in the CITY OF LIVERPOOL.
FIRE BRANCH, THE Corporation of Liverpool require the Services
that the premims for 1879, after deducting Re-insurances, amounted
to £491,912, and the losses to £300,643, or 61:11 per cent. of a SOLICITOR to act as Clerk of Prosecutions. Salary
IN THE LIFE BRANCH, 2800. A statement of duties may be obtained from the Town Clerk,
that new policies had been issued for £235,470, and that the Life Applications, with Copies of Testimonials, to be sent in before the 19th of June, 1880.
Fund, by the additions made to it in the year, now represents 67-4 (By order) JOSEPH RAYNER, Town Clerk.
per cent. of the entire net premiums received on every policy in Town Clerk's Office, Liverpool, May 22nd, 1880.
The surplus in the year's Fire Account, amounting to £91,987, was
disposed of as follows: I AW.-WANTED, Managing Clerkship, by a
£40.000........ Added to Reserves. Solicitor of 12 years' experience. Is accustomed to advise
20,480........ Carried forward to next Account clients and to conduct Conveyancing, Chancery, and Common Law
31,506 ..... Appropriated for Dividend. business without supervision.-LEX, 1, Castleton-villas, Ashbourne
The Funds were shown hereafter to stand as follows: grove, East Dulwich.
Capital Paid-up ......................... £180,035
.............. 370.490 Fire Accumulation Fund ...
325,616 I AW.-WANTED, by a SOLICITOR (recently
Annuity Fund.......................... 10,963 W admitted), thoroughly acquainted with Magisterial Practice and the general routine of a country office, an Engagement as Con.
The Income of the Company is now £595,276 veyancing Clerk under slight supervision. Salary moderate.-Ad.
The Company has paid in satis- 3.065.736 dress ALPHA, care of Mr. Gotelee, Odiham, Hants.
faction of Claims...............)
J. MONCRIEFF WILSON, General Manager. mo COUNTRY SOLICITORS.-The Friends of an
T. WALTON THOMSON, Sub-Manager, 1 Intelligert and Competent Young Man, aged 23, and who has
J. K. RUMFORD, Secretary in London. served over four years of his articles in a London office, are anxious
Active and Influential Agents Wanted. to place him with a Country Solicitor where his services would be received in full or part compensation for assistance given to complete his time and pass his Final Examination.-Address, s. A., care of
DEVERSIONARY and LIFE INTERESTS in Messrs. Street, Serle-street, Lincoln's-inn, London, W.C.
IV LANDED or FUNDED PROPERTY or other Securities and
by the EQUITABLE REVERSIONARY INTEREST SOCIETY (LIMIYOUNG IRISH SOLICITOR, who has
TED), 10, Lancaster-place, Waterloo Bridge, Strand. Establ sled 1835. practised in Ireland for four years, would be glad 10 re-serve
Copital, £500,000. Interest on Loa na may be capitalized. his articles with a good London firın. No premium to be asked for.
F. S. CLAYTON, ) Join' He would be willing to devote his whole time to the service of the
C. H. CLAYTOX, Secrourid. business.- Por particulars as to sulary, &e., please apply to X. X., 41, Warer'00-street, Birmingham,
SOVEREIGN LIFE OFFIOE. COSTS Drawn and Settled on Fair Terms by a
FOUNDED A.D. 1845. ♡ Solicitor who has had 20 years' experience in settling costs and
The Report of the Directors, just presented to the Proprietors, states legal accounts in offices with large praclices.-Aduess Costa, 117,
that since the last valuation the Funds had been increased by upwards Chancery-lane, w.C.
ENDOWMENTS and ANNUITIES granted on liberal terms. DRELIMINARY EXAMINATION.--A Gentle ASSURANCES adapted to all circumstances and climates. 1 man Wishes his son Prepared for the October Examination.
Copies of the Report and Balance-sheets can be had on application A provincial town preferred.-Address, with particulars, 656, “Mid
H. D. DAVENPORT, Secretary. land Counties Herald” Office, Birmingham.
L'HE STANDARD LIFE ASSURANCE COMTAWYERS PRAYER UNION.-It is proposed to
PANY.-Established 1825, U hold another Social and Religious Meeting in London for
ANNUAL REPORT, 1880. Barristers and Solicitors, and their Clerks only, on THURSDAY,
Amount of Assurances accepted..
... £1,134,444 JUNE 17, 1880, Mr. ROBERT ANDERSON, LL.D., in the Chair.
Ditto during the last five years............... 6,266 013 Any gentlemen in the Legal Profession, or their Clerks, who desire
Total assurances .......
19,044,745 w attend, or will assist in inviting others, are requested to apply to
796,459 Mr. H. O, NISBET, 35, Lincoln's-inn-fields.
Invested Funds ............
5,514,732 NEW OFFICES to be LET, specially adapted to
DIVISION OF PROFITS, 1881. the reqnirements of Solicitors.-The handsome First Floor, consisting of two rooms fitted with speaking tubes and every con.
THE PROFITS WHICH HAVE ARISEN SINCE 1875 will be die venience studied, in the newly-erected building, No. 7, Bell yard,
vided among Policies in existence at the close of the current year, and immediately facing the Royal Courts of Justice.-Rent moderate.
assurar.ces now effected will participate.
Since 1835 the Company has distributed THREE MILLIONS Sterling TOTLAND BAY, Isle of Wight, near Alum Bay.
on Bonus additions to Policies,
London : 82, King William-street, E.C., and 3. Pall Mall East, 8.W. TOTLAND BAY HOTEL, Magnificent sea views. Will Dublin : 66, Úpper Sackville-street. Manchester : 50, Spring-gardens. open at Whitsuntide. Comfort, with moderate charges. Billiard Liverpool : 10, Cook-street. room and tennis lawn. Bracing air. Excellent sands and promenade pier. Good anchorage for yachts.-Apply to Miss FLEMING, Manageress, late of the Langham Hotel.
D I R K B E C K B A N K.WANTED to PURCHASE, to Complete a Set,
Current Accounts opened according to the usual practice of other Vols. 15 to 20 of the WEEKLY REPORTER.-State lowest Bankers, and Interest allowed on the minimum monthly balances. No price for the whole or any single vol. to ALPHA, care of E. W. Owles, commission charged for keeping Accounts. The Bank also receives Esq., 22, Chancery-lane, W.c.
money on Deposit at Three and a half per cent. Interest, repayable on
demand. The Bank undertakes for its Customers, free of charge, the VACHER'S DIGEST of the STAMP DUTIES,
custody of Deeds, Writings, and other Securities and Valcables; the col
lection of Bills of Exchange, Dividends, and Coupons; and the purchas end of the JUDICIAL DECISIONS THEREON.-With Notes.
and sale of Stocks and Shares. Letters of Credit and Circn'ar Notes By GUALTER C. GRIFFITH, of the Inner Temple, Barrister-at-Law,
issued for all parts of Europe and elsewhere. A Pamphlet, with fall parand of the Inland Revenue Department. Eighth Edition. Fcap. 8vo, I ticulars, on application. cloth, 8s.
FRANCIS RAVENSOROFT, Manager.
(LATE MADME. JANET), U ENRY GREEN, Advertisement Agent, begs to 1 direct the attention of the Legal Profession to the advantages
(OPPOSITE THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY). of his long experience of upwards of thirty years, in the special in. First-class Luncheon Bar for gentlemen in the neighbourbood. Publio tertion of all pro forma notices, &c., and hereby solicits their continued
and Private Dining Rooms. Dinners for 39. 68.. 48, 6d., Bs. 60., 78, 80., support.-N.B.One copy of advertisement only required, and the strictest and 108. 6d. Will be served in the Private Dining Roms: no extra care and promptitude assured. Offlcially stamped forms for adverstise charge for room or pianoforte. Choicest Wines, Beor, and Spirits.-* ment and file of " Luodon Gazette "kept. By appointment.
| Proprietors, DORER BROTHERS.
10, CASTLE-STREET, HOLBORN
chase the site of the buildings at the price originally paid to the society for it, and also to take the buildings is at a valuation as old building materials.” We may
add that when the courts of the Chancery Division are LONDON, JUNE 12, 1880.
removed to the Royal Courts of Justice, the court erected for the Vice-Chancellor of England, now occupied by
Vice-Chancellor Malins, will, under the last-mentioned CONTENTS.
Act, become the property of the Society of Lincoln's-inn, CURRENT TOPICS: The Chancery Cause Lists......
without their making any payment for the same or the
.................... 603 The Vacated Legal Offices
materials thereof, and the society will also be entitled to The Middlesex Registry......
be repaid all principal sums which they have, from Production of Original of Telegraphic Message .............. 603 Mr. Staveley Hill's Bill to Amend the Agricultural Holdings time to time, since the year 1840, expended out of their Act.......
funds in the erection and fitting up of courts for the use Motions as to Solicitors before Mr. Justice Fry ........ Mr. Commissioner Kerr.... ....
of the judges of the Court of Chancery, and otherwise Suits to Ascertain Boundaries..........
for the benefit of that court. The Official Referees .......
601 LEADERS:A Man and his Name .....
... 605 THE BILL INTRODUCED LAST SESSION by Mr. Osborne Effect of Signature of Name common to Firm and Individual
Morgan “to improve the constitution and extend the Member of Firm .................. ...................... 606 RECENT DECISIONS ..........
district of the Middlesex Land Registry" (printed in REVIEWS .......................................... .. ........ 608
extenso, ante, p. 369), has this session been brought in GENERAL CORESPONDENCE .... CASES OF THE WEEK :
by Mr. Hopwood. The provisions as to registered Ranby, Ex parte
| charges are, as we think wisely, omitted ; and the Bill. Symmons, Ex parte .....
.......... 609 Attorney-General, The, v. Tomline ..........
as it now stands, proposes, first, to extend the district of Cummins v. Fletcher .........
610 the registry to the whole of the metropolis—that is to Maddick v. Marks ........................... .............. 610
say, to the places mentioned in schedules A., B., and C. Molloy v. Kilby ........................
610 Cooper v. Whittingham ..........
to the Metropolis Management Act, 1855; and next to Richardson, Re, Richardson v. Richards
.... 611 re-organize the Registry Office, and compel a more conCommissioners of the Exhibition of 1851, The, v. The Royal Horticultural Society.......
venient system of keeping the index. We rather regret
.... 611 Witham v, Vane .......
that the first of these objects should be attempted at Cave v. Cave ............ ....
present; the proposal to extend the district of a register SOCIETIES ........
612 LAW STUDENTS' JOURNAL ...................
which has the reputation of being the most inconvenient OBITUARY ......
in the kingdom will be strongly opposed, and the opAPPOINTMENTS .....
position may prove fatal to a measure which, of all COMPANIES......
.......................... 616 ELECTIOX PETITIONS.
ITIONS ......................................... 616 the land law reforms, is most urgently needed. Mr. LEGISLATION OF THE WEEK ............
Joshua Williams, Q.C. has truly said that everyone CREDITORS' CLAIMS.................... COURT PAPERS ........................
.618 complains of the Middlesex Registry, and Mr. Farrer told LEGAL NEWS .....
620 the Land Transfer Commissioners that “the searches LONDON GAZETTES, &c., &C..........
occasion great trouble and some expense, and in many CASES REPORTED IN THE WEEKLY REPORTER. cases are impracticable. I have known solicitors ask Attorney-General, The, v. Dowling (Exch. Div.) ..
673 their clients to permit them to give up the search as Bramble, Ex parte, In re Toleman & England (Bkcy.)..... 676 Birmingham Estates Company v. Smith (Ch.Div. M.R.)........ 666
useless, getting from their clients this authority on a Government Security Fire Insurance Company (Limited), In re written form in order to protect themselves against any The, Mudford's Claim (Ch.Div. V.C.M) .....
charge of negligence." The mode in which the Bill Hayton v, Irwin (App.).... Hiù and others v. The Metropolitan Asylums District Board proposes to deal with the index follows in the (App.) ....
664 main the suggestions which were made by corMetropolitan Asylums District Board, The, v. Hill and others (H.L.) ...
respondents in these columns two years ago. It is Pike v. Fitz-Gibbon (Ch. Div. V.C.M.)..
667 provided that the registrar shall divide the district Porter v. Drew and another (C.P.Div.).
into sub-districts, and keep a separate division of the Seymour v. Coulson and another (App.)....
....... 661 Walker v. Budden (App.)...........
665 register for each sub-district; that the index shall be so
framed as to furnish references to places as well as to
persons, and shall, as far as practicable, be based on the CURRENT TOPICS.
ordnance map; and provision is also made for official
searches, and the issue of certificates of the results of NOTWITHSTANDING THE APPARENTLY formidable dimen
such searches. sions of the cause lists of the judges of the Chancery Division, there is a probability that, before long, there
SOME USEFUL INFORMATION as to the conditions under will not be sufficient causes to supply the daily lists of | which the Post Office will produce, for judicial or other some of these judges. Vice-Chancellor Bacon, who purposes, the originals of messages sent by telegraph, has now upwards of sixty causes before him, is under- | transpired at the hearing of the application for a sum. stood to anticipate that all his causes which are ready
mons against Mr. Callan, M.P., for libel, at the Marl. for hearing will be disposed of in the course of a fort.
| borough-street Police-court, on Thursday last. The pight or three weeks, and there are already rumours of judges have always shown great unwillingness to compel arrangements being in progress for a transfer to his
the production of these documents. Thus in The Taunlordship.
ton Election Petition (2 O’M. & H. 72-3), Grove, J., said
that the matter was one involving a great deal of diffiTHE RECENT REMOVAL of the Chancery Paymaster has culty on public grounds, and he refrained from giving left vacant a large block of offices, originally built on part any decision on the question until he had consulted the of the garden of Lincoln's-inn, and formerly occupied other election judges. The unanimous judgment of by the Chancery Registrars, the Record and Writ Clerks, those judges was that, without expressing a formal the Inrolment Office. and the Chancery Paymaster. I decision, the court ought not to interfere to compel the Under the provisions of two private Acts of Geo. 3, production of telegrams demanded, or even to say any. confirmed by the Act of 28 & 29 Vict. c. 48, the thing to the officers of the Post Office to procure their Society of Lincoln's-inn, upon the Lord Chancellor's production. The learned judge added, " I am not by certifying to the Treasury that the business hitherto this decision saying that cases might not arise where, upon conducted in these buildings has been transferred strong specific grounds being shown, the judge might to the Royal Courts of Justice, such certificate interpose his authority." The point also arose in The being filed in the Report Office, are entitled to repur. | Stroud Election Petition (2 O'M, & H. 110-112), where
Es paatates Fire
Mr. Baron Bramwell said, “ I have a strong impression the official solicitor of the court that a solicitor who was that these documents are in the custody of her Majesty, a defendant in an action had been guilty of improper and that you have no right to bring them here, any conduct. The official solicitor thereupon applied to Mr. more than a banker's clerk has a right to bring his Justice Fry for leave to serve notice of motion on the master's ledger.” The learned judge having been solicitor to show cause why he should not be struck off the urged by counsel to compel the Post Office official, who roll, the application being made, not only in the action. declined to give in the telegram, to produce it, refused but also in the matter of the solicitor. By the order of the to accede to counsel's request, adding, “I will not en Lord Chancellor (made under ord. 5, r. 4a.), dated 19th force the production of the telegram by summary pro- | June, 1877 (21 SOLICITORS' JOURNAL, 688), it was ceedings of commitment for contempt of court. I directed that “no cause or matter shall, until further should add, however," he concluded, “to the remarks order, be assigned to Mr. Justice Fry by the same being I have made, that the Crown could always say, 'We marked by the plaintiff or petitioner with the name of think this ought to be done, and we shall raise no ob- the said Mr. Justice Fry;” but under ord. 51, r. la, jection to its production.'” The result of the proceed- when any cause has been transferred for the purpose of ings at the Police-court, on Thursday last, would seem trial or hearing only, the judge to whom the cause is to show that the Post Office authorities have adopted the transferred may direct that “any further proceedings suggestion of the learned judge, and are now willing to therein, before or after the hearing or trial thereof, shall produce these documents (or at all events news telegrams be taken and prosecuted before himself.” The learned addressed to newspapers) in legal proceedings in which judge doubted whether, under this last rule, he had they may judge such production to be necessary. But power to entertain the application, but, ultimately, hav. it appears that they will always require a written ing regard to the authority over solicitors given by secauthority for production to be furnished, signed either tion 87 of the Judicature Act, 1873, to "any judge" by (1) the sender of the message, or (2) the receiver of of the High Court, he gave leave to serve notice for a the message, or (3), in the case of Ireland, by the Lord motion before himself. Lieutenant. In the recent case the original message was produced upon a request from the receiver.
MR. COMMISSIONER KERR has recommenced his humour
ous orations on the sins of the legal profession. The OF THE MANY MEASURES introduced to amend the Arst of the present season was delivered on the 7th inst., Agricultural Holdings Act, Mr. Stavely Hill's is the
and appears to have been a great success. A defendant simplest. It proposes to provide that it shall not be opened the proceedings by remarking that the plaintiff's competent for a landlord or tenant to withdraw himself demand “was only increased after it got into the hands from the compensation provisions of the Act, unless there of the lawyer," whereupon the commissioner broke in shall be provided “under or by an agreement subsisting with “ Have you not had sufficient experience of lawyers between them at the time of the termination of the
to know that it is best to make peace with your enemies tenancy, a compensation to the tenant of an amount at
while you are in the way with them ?" This exquisite least equal to that provided by the said Act." This
Scriptural joke was received with “laughter," encouraged ignores altogether the compensation under the custom of by which tho commissioner proceeded to say, “Because, the country, which we believe isat all events as regards if not, I can tell you that after it gets into the hands the second and third classes of improvements-often of the lawyers a claim at once becomes four times as
of the lawyers a daima more advantageous to the tenant than the provisions of big as it was." This sentiment appears to have fairly the Agricultural Holdings Act. But the peculiarity of brought down the audience; and, amid " renewed the proposed clause is the mode provided for deciding | laughter," the Court proceeded to less important business.. whether the compensation under the agreement is or is not equal in amount to that provided by the Act. This is by allowing the tenant, after he has entered into an agreement with his landlord excluding the Act, or pro
SUITS TO ASCERTAIN BOUNDARIES, though belonging viding for special compensation, to break it if he thinks to a head of equitable jurisdiction known to every approper. It is provided that “for the purpose of deter- | prentice, have of late years been very unusual. A good mining whether the compensation provided by the reason for this disuse appears from the result of the agreement is of such equal amount, be it enacted action of Spike v. Harding, which was recently before that notwithstanding anything contained in the agree Vice-Chancellor Hall. On further consideration, the ment for tenancy, or any other agreement between / judge stated that it is not the rule of the court in him and his landlord, a tenant may give notice, such cases to make costs follow the event. The litigain the manner provided by section 20 of the tion in these suits-whether a commission is granted or said Act, that he will proceed to make his claim (as was done in the recent case) an inquiry directedunder that Act as though no agreement were subsisting is costly; and the expenses of either side would soon betweer. them," and, thereupon, "all questions as to run away with the fee-simple value of the debated terricompensation shall be settled in manner provided by the tory. said Act; and the agreement for tenancy and any other agreement existing between the landlord and tenant shall, 80 far as any question in respect of compensation between THE OFFICIAL REFEREES have recently been somewhat such landlord and tenant is affected thereby, become,
less at leisure, and in course of time may earn a and be wholly void and of no effect.” The learned respectable portion of their salaries. We believe that putative father of this singular Bill appears to have up to the beginning of the present year the cases before omitted to observe that the Agricultural Holdings Act them averaged, for the four years during which they does not provide anything like a complete scheme of have blessed the profession with their services, about compensation to the tenant, and that if his Bill passes sixteen cases a year for each referee. But we hear that into law, and the tenant gives notice as provided in the during the present year the number of cases has already clause last cited, he will lose the benefit of any agree
reached the high average of about twenty for each of ment he may have made with the landlord as to compen these learned and hitherto comparatively unoccupied sation for fallows, and many other matters not included in gentlemen. the three classes of improvements mentioned in the Act.
A CURIOUS LITTLE POINT was raised before Mr. Justice Fry last week. The learned judge had intimated to
tion as a medical adviser, and the value which his A MAN AND HIS NAME.
name had acquired therefrom, to have practically in. I.
cluded a reputation for the composition of the medicines
he recommended, and to have entitled him to protection MANY years have passed and much has happened
against anything which might injure the pecuniary value since the question—"What's in a name?"-was first
of the eminent position he filled in medical matters asked, but the time has not yet come for the lawyer to
generally. If this suggestion be correct, Lord Cairns' deny that there is much in a name which concerns
observation only amounts to this, that Lord Langdale's him. The common law courts and the judges at
principle was correct, but that he applied it somewhat Nisi Prius have their time occupied for weeks with
too narrowly, since he ought to have regarded Sir J. libel cases which have all come of “calling names,"
Clark as the proprietor of a valuable medical business, while the chancery practitioner surveys an elongated list
of which pill making and dispensing generally formed a of actions arising out of the use or misuse of names
mere subordinate branch. bestowed by parents or sponsors. The extent of litigation which has originated in this source is beyond
Once admit that the owner of a name uses it in his dispute, as will appear from the amount of authority to
business, whatever that may be, then the remarks of which it will be necessary to refer in considering, from
Lord Justice James in the recent case of Levy v. Walker an equity point of view, the rights and duties of men in
(L. R. 10 Ch. D. 436) become applicable: “ The sole respect of their names.
right to restrain anybody from using any name that he Let us take, first, a man's rights in respect of his name.
likes in the course of any business he chooses to carry A very lucid and valuable statement of the general law
on is a right in the nature of a trade-mark. That is on this subject will be found in the judgment of the
to say, somebody has a right to say, 'You must not use Privy Council (delivered by the late Lord Chelmsford) in
a name, whether fictitious or real, or a description, the case of Du Boulay y. Du Boulay (17 W. R. 594, I
whether true or not, which is intended to represent, or L. R. 2 P. C. 441), where the object of the suit in which
in which is calculated to represent, to the world that your business the appeal was brought was to restrain one man from is my business, and therefore deprive me by a frauduassuming another man's family name. What Lord
lent mis-statement of yours of the profits of the Chelmsford says is this —" In this country we do not
business which would otherwise come to me.' That is recognize the absolute right of a person to a particular
the sole principle on which the court interferes. The name to the extent of entitling him to prevent the as- court interferes solely for the purpose of protecting the sumption of that name by a stranger. The right to the owner of a trade or business from a fraudulent invasion exclusive use of a name in connection with a trade or
in connection Tith trade or of that business by somebody else. It does not interfere business is familiar to our law; and any person using
n using to prevent the world outside from being misled into any
to prevent the world outsi that name, after a relative right of this description has
thing." A good example of the case in which the court been acquired by another, is considered to be guilty of
does interfere is Cave v. Myers, in which Vice-Chancellor a fraud, or, at least, of an invasion of another's rights,
Giffard (December 3, 1868) granted an injunction to and renders himself liable to an action, or he may be
restrain a fraudulent imitation of the name of a tradesrestrained from the use of the name by injunction. But
on. But man named “Cave," by a neighbour who, occupying a the mere assumption of a name which is the patronymic
corner shop, painted up the name “Cavendish House" of a family by a stranger who had never before been
in such a manner that “ Cave " alone appeared called by that name, whatever cause of annoyance it
in the same street as the plaintiff's shop, the remainder may be to the family, is a grievance for which our law of the inscription being round the corner of the next affords no redress.”
| street. In discussions on this topic the case of Clark v. Free. In Levy v. Walker Lord Justice James speaks of man (11 Beav. 112) is always made the subject of much the right to restrain the use of a particular name in a remark, and the exact effect of the decision does not particular business as "a right in the nature of a tradeappear to be even yet clearly ascertained. Lord Lang- mark," but when a name has been employed in an dale there refused to accede to the contention of an appropriate manner, the right acquired therein is not eminent physician, named Sir James Clark, who did not merely a right in the nature of a trade-mark, but it is an manufacture or sell pills or other medicines, and to actual and positive right of trade-mark, for, to use Lord restrain another person from advertising or selling pills Hatherley's language in Ainsworth v. Walmsley (14 under the name of “Sir J. Clark's Consumption Pills." W. R. 363, L. R. 1 Eq.518)—"Is not a man's name as There could, of course, be no question with respect to strong an instance of trade-mark as can be suggested ? the object the defendant had in view, but the Master of subject only to this inconvenience, that if & Mr. the Rolls considered that, since the plaintiff did not sell Jones or a Mr. Brown relies on his name, he may pills, there could be no injury to property even if the find it a very inadequate security, because defendant's pills were bought under the impression that there may be several other manufacturers of they were made by the plaintiff ; the plaintiff could not the same name.” Injunctions have repeatedly been thereby lose the sale of any genuine pills. Other judges granted, both in England and America, to restrain the have observed unfavourably upon this decision, and Lord use of names which have become trade-marks, as, for Cairns, in Maxwell v. Hogg (15 W. R. 467, L. R. 2 Ch. instance, in Ainsworth v. Walmsley; Rodgers v. Nowill 307), said that it had always appeared to him that the (6 Hare, 325); Holloway v. Holloway (13 Beav. 209); case might have been decided in favour of the plaintiff, Wolfe v. Barnett (13 Amer. Rep. 111); and many more on the ground that he had a property in his own name. cases might be cited. In Scotland, too, as early as 1823, Of course, no one but Lord Cairns himself can state an interdict was granted in Wilkie v. McCulloch positively in what precise sense he used the words "prop-|(2 S. 413) to restrain the wrongful use on ploughs of erty in his own name, but it certainly seems that those the name of & well-knowo plough manufacturer. words are sometimes understood in a sense which his There is, then, no doubt that it is generally recognized lordship could hardly have attributed to them. It seems that a name may become and be protected by a tradeimpossible that his lordship could have meant to say mark when the necessary conditions have been complied that the mere fact of Sir J. Clark being 80 named with, subject, indeed, to the limitation pointed out in entitled him to sue; in the very same judgment Lord Ainsworth v. Walmsley, which was thus re-stated by Cairns, speaking of the acquisition of a trade-mark, said the Supreme Court of Massachusetts in a case which that protection could not be given where there had been came before that tribunal-Gilman V. Hunnewell no sale, or offering for sale, of the articles to which the (122 Mass. 139)-"A person may have a right in his name was to be attached; but it seems that the two own name as a trade-mark as against a person of a statements are perfectly reconcilable if his lordship is different name. But he cannot have such a right understood to have regarded Sir J. Clark's great reputa. as against another person of the same name, unless the
defendant uses a form of stamp or label so like that bill of exchange, because the law of negotiable instruused by the plaintiff as to represent that the defendant's ments is that, in order to be liable on the instrument, the goods are of the plaintiff's manufacture.” The law on defendant's name must appear as that of a party on the the whole subject was carefully considered and laid instrument. That principle is an obvious one with regard down in the same way by the highest court in the United to ordinary
You cannot make B. & States in McLean v. Fleming (96 U. S. Rep. 245). In party to a bill because it bears A.'s signature, even Howe v. Howe Machine Company (50 Barb. S. C. 236) it though A. was agent for B. in the transaction. That was even held that A. B. Howe, who had been accustomed class of cases docs not help much here. An ambiguous to manufacture eewing machines under a licence from signature being used, it may, as it seems to us, be a queshis brother, the original patentee and inventor, Elias tion whether under certain circumstances a right may Howe, and to mark such machines with the name of not exist in favour of the holder of the bill, to elect which “Howe,” was entitled to a right in the name capable of effect he will give to the signature. We think that protection even against Elias Howe and those claiming the first proposition decided by the court must be through him, though po injunction was actually granted, looked at with relation to the circumstances of the parthere being a question to be decided with respect to an ticular case, and that it cannot be considered as absoalleged agreement between the parties, authorizing the lutely determined yet that there never can be such a defendant tu use the name.
right of election. It seems almost impossible to suggest that uader any circumstances the individual member
signing the bill could not be held solely liable on a bill EFFECT OF SIGNATURE OF NAME COM himself solely for his own private purposes. If it is to
eigned in his own name by which he intended to bind MON TO FIRM AND INDIVIDUAL MEM
be assumed that there can never be a right of election, BER OF FIRM.
of course it follows from this that the firm can never be The case of the Yorkshire Banking Company v. liable on such a bill; but we cannot think the matter so Beatson (L. R. 5 0. P. D. 109), recently decided in obvious or capable of being so simply disposed of. the Court of Appeal, raised several points of im. Neither the ordinary doctrine with regard to principal and portance which had been considered doubtful with agent, nor the exception to it with regard to negotiable regard to the law of negotiable instruments. It | instruments, appears to afford sufficient materials for a not unfrequently happens that the business of a firm solution of the problem. is carried on under the name of an individual partner. The second point decided by the court seems to us the It is a general rule with regard to bills of exchange more important-viz., that the onus of showing that the and other instruments that, in order to bind the firm, bill was the private bill of the individual member and not the signature must be that of the name or style of the the bill of the firm lay on the dormant partner. The argufirm. But, of course, where the name or style of the ment ab inconvenienti upon which the court proceeded firm is the same as that of an individual partner, a diffi- appears to us to be almost irresistible. They say, in culty may arise with regard to the effect of an instru-giving judgment, “The vast majority of bills given ment signed in such name. The facts of the case we under the circumstances supposed would be really refer to were briefly these :-A. and B. carried on partnership bills, and yet it would be often difficult, it business in partnership. B. was a dormant partner, and not impossible, for the holders of such bills to do more A. was the sole ostensible partner, the business being than prove that the only trade carried on under the carried on in his name only. A. entered into accom individual name was the trade of a partnership; and if modation transactions for his private purposes, and they were compelled to go further and prove that the parwithout the authority of B. accepted and indorsed bills ticular bill was a partnership bill, the effect might be of exchange in his own name. In so doing he did not that in many cases dormant partners, and in some cases intend to bind B., but considered the bills as private ostensible ones too, might escape from just liabilities." transactions, and signed them merely on his own behalf. The court below had held otherwise on the supposed The plaintiffs became bona fide holders for value of the result of the English and American authorities ; but the bills 80 signed, and took the bills as the bills of the Court of Appeal, on a full review of those authorities, proprietor or proprietors of the business carried on by thought they did not bear the construction that had been the partnership, whoever he or they might be, and not put upon them. merely as the private bills of A. Besides the business At first sight it seemed to us that the principle of the partnership, A. was not engaged in any business. involved in the second proposition was somewhat It was held that the
plaintiffs could not recover against antagonistic to what we supposed to be the effect of the B. upon the bills. The court, in giving judgment, ap- third proposition. But on a careful perusal of the pear to have laid down the following propositions, which reports it will be observed that the court do not, in the are summarized in the head-note of the report:- First, third proposition, say that a bona fide holder, who takes when a signature is common to an individual and a firm the bill, knowing of the existence of the dormant partner of which the individual is a member, a bonâ fide holder sought to be charged, and intending to give credit to the for value of a bill bearing such signature, without notice firm, cannot recover against such partner. In the case whose paper it is, has not an option to sue either the in question the holder of the bill was treated as having individual or the firm ; secondly, there is, however, a taken the bill as the bill of the proprietor or proprietors presumption that the bill was given for the firm, at of the business, whoever they might be, but he had least, when the individual member carries on no busi never heard of B., the dormant partner, whom it was ness separate from the business of the firm of which he sought to make liable together with the partner who is a member ; but, thirdly, this presumption may be re signed the bill. He never knew of any one but the butted by proof that the bill was signed, not in the name ostensible partner in connection with the business. of the partnership, but of the individual for his private Unless due notice is taken of this fact, the decision may purposes, and it is immaterial that the bona fide holder mislead. There was no reason in justice why the holder took the bill as the bill of the proprietors of the partner- skould be entitled to have recourse to B., whom he had ship business, whoever they might be, and not merely as not trusted, and of whom he had never even heard. that of the individual.
When this consideration is duly appreciated, it appears We cannot help somewhat doubting the soundness of to us that the actual decision in the case becomes a very the general proposition that there never can be a right to obvious affair, hardly worth so much elaboration as it elect in such a case whether you will sue the individual received. It might have been assumed, rather than partner or the firm. Dicta are no doubt to be found in decided, that the onus lay on the defendant B. of the text-books to the effect that you cannot have an showing that this was a private bill. Assuming that it option to sue either of two parties on one signature to a did, he having shown this, the only question remaining