Beekman v. Marsters

Citation80 N.E. 817,195 Mass. 205
PartiesBEEKMAN v. MARSTERS.
Decision Date06 April 1907
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

195 Mass. 205
80 N.E. 817

BEEKMAN
v.
MARSTERS.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

April 6, 1907.


Case Reserved from Supreme Judicial Court, Suffolk County.

Bill by Gabriel E. Beekman against George E. Marsters for an injunction. Reserved by single justice for the determination of the Supreme Judicial Court. Injunction granted.


George [195 Mass. 216]R. Nutter, Harrison F. Lyman, and Brandeis, Dunbar & Nutter, for complainant.

Clarence W. Rowley, for respondent.


[195 Mass. 206]LORING, J.

This suit came before the single justice on the report of a master to which no exceptions had been taken by either party, and was reserved by him for our consideration and determination without any ruling or decision having been made.

The master found that on November 21, 1906, a contract was made between the plaintiff and the Jamestown Hotel Corporation. The Jamestown Hotel Corporation is a corporation which is erecting or has erected a hotel within the grounds of the Jamestown Exposition to be held between[195 Mass. 207]April 26th and November 30th of this year. This hotel is known as the ‘Inside Inn,’ and is to be the only hotel within the exposition grounds. The plaintiff is the proprietor of a tourist agency, having an office at 293 Washington street, Boston. By the contract between the plaintiff and the hotel corporation the plaintiff agreed to represent the hotel corporation throughout the New England states, to establish subagencies in that territory, and to use every possible endeavor personally and through his agents to book persons for the Inside Inn; and the defendant agreed ‘that you [the plaintiff] shall be out exclusive agent in said territory,’ to pay him [the plaintiff] 25 cents a day for each person sent by him to the hotel, and to furnish the plaintiff with all necessary ‘literature.’

Immediately upon being thus appointed the exclusive agent of the hotel corporation the plaintiff prepared and issued a fall edition of his ‘Tickets and Tours,’ in which inter alia a description is given of the Jamestown Exposition had of the Inside Inn. Following this is the statement that the plaintiff has been appointed New England agent for the exposition ‘and exclusive representative of the Inside Inn.’

The defendant is found by the master to be a ticket and tourist agent, with an office at 298 Washington street, Boston. On January 11, 1907, he went to Norfolk, Va., and called upon the officers of the hotel corporation there. At this time he ‘had seen the contract between the complainant and the hotel corporation, but had not read it, and knew that the company had practically consummated a contract making Beekman its sole representative in New England.’ The defendant at this interview told these officers ‘that it was a mistake for the corporation to give an exclusive agency in New England to any one man, and that more business would be brought to the company if all agents were given equal terms,’ and to enforce his arguments stated that the business done by the plaintiff was insignificant and that the statement was false which was made in the summer edition of his ‘Tickets and Tours' that certain persons therein named had his tickets and tours for sale. It appeared that the summer edition of this catalogue had been shown to the hotel corporation by the plaintiff when he made his contract with it.

The master found that ‘as a result of the solicitations or [195 Mass. 208]representations made by the respondent, the Jamestown Hotel Corporation on or about January 11, 1907, entered into an oral cortract with him, whereby it was agreed that the respondent should have the same rights that had been given to the complainant, and that he should be paid by the corporation 25 cents per capita per day for each guest whom he should secure for the Inside Inn.’

The defendant then wrote to all men named in the plaintiff's catalogue except those having places of business in Canada, ‘and two or three others who appeared to have an independent agency business,’ telling them that the plaintiff had not an exclusive agency for New England and suggesting to them that they could get paid on the same footing as that upon which the plaintiff and defendant were to be paid, if they chose to act for themselves and not as subagents of the plaintiff. He also wrote to the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company, calling attention to the fact that some of the local ticket agents of that railroad company were advertised by the plaintiff as having his tickets and tours on sale, and suggesting

[80 N.E. 818]

that the railroad company would prefer to have all its agents strictly neutral in dealing with tourist concerns.

With respect to these letters the master made this finding: ‘The purpose of the respondent in sending the letters above mentioned appears from the letters themselves. I do not find that the respondent was actuated by malice toward the complainant.’

The master further found that ‘the Jamestown Hotel Corporation has never at any time rescinded, or attempted to rescind, its said contract with the complainant’; that ‘the complainant has never waived any of his rights under the contract, and has never consented to any modification or alteration thereof except with reference to the bond’ which is not material; and further, that ‘the Inside Inn is the only hotel which is located, or, under the contract of the company with the exposition, can be located, within the exposition grounds. The exclusive right to act as agent for the Inside Inn within the New England territory is a valuable right.’

Lastly he has found: ‘There is a strong probability that a large tourist business will be done between Boston and New [195 Mass. 209]England and the Jamestown Exposition between April and the close of the exposition in November, and that many passengers will arrange for tours through various tourist agencies. In all probability many more passengers will buy tours and tickets from the complainant if he is the exclusive agent in New England for the Inside Inn than will...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT