Garst v. Hall & Lyon Co.

• Citation: 61 N.E. 219,179 Mass. 588
• Parties: GARST v. HALL & LYON CO.
• Decision Date: 18 October 1901
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

179 Mass. 588

61 N.E. 219

GARST v. HALL & LYON CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Worcester.

October 18, 1901

COUNSEL

Webster Thayer and Hollis W. Cobb, for plaintiff.

Charles T. Tatman, for defendant.

OPINION

KNOWLTON J.

This case is reserved on the bill, demurrer, answer, and agreed facts; the defendant's rights under the demurrer not being waived. The plaintiff is the owner and manufacturer of a proprietary medicine known as 'Phenyo-Caffein,' which is made from a secret formula. His trade-mark for said medicine is registered in the patent office of the United States and in the office of the secretary of the commonwealth of Massachusetts. The defendant corporation is a retail dealer in drugs and medicines. The plaintiff sells all Phenyo-Caffein subject to the conditions of a contract in which each purchaser agrees that he will not sell nor allow any one in his employ to sell it for prices less than those specified in the agreement for the different sizes of boxes, and promises to pay the plaintiff an agreed sum as damages if he violates this contract. The plaintiff also agrees, as a part of the contract, that, in case the vendee at any time desires to discontinue the sale of this medicine, and notifies the plaintiff in writing of that fact he will buy of the vendee any of the medicine which he has on hand at the net cost price at which it was sold to him. Besides these facts, the plaintiff's bill avers that the defendant, with full knowledge of the conditions under which the medicine is sold by the plaintiff, has fraudulently obtained large quantities thereof with the intention of retailing it in violation of these conditions, and against the right of the plaintiff. The defendant demurs for want of equity and for other causes. It is not averred that the defendant ever made any contract or agreement with the plaintiff, or had any dealings with him. No fraudulent act or conduct of the defendant in obtaining the medicine is set out, although the word 'fraudulently' is used in characterizing his acts. This word adds nothing to the averments of fact in the bill. The statement of the alleged fraud is too general to be the foundation of a decree. Nichols v. Rogers, 139 Mass. 146, 29 N.E. 377; Nye v. Storer, 168 Mass. 53, 46 N.E. 402. The averments of the bill in this particular would be entirely satisfied by showing a purchase of the medicine by the defendant from a person who bought it of the plaintiff's vendee, or from one who bought it of a purchaser from the vendee. The agreed statement of facts shows that the defendant obtained it in this way. The defendant did not buy the medicine of the firm of wholesalers who received it from the plaintiff, and who agreed to sell it subject to the above conditions, but bought it of a person sho bought either from this firm or from a purchaser from this firm. The transactions between the plaintiff and his vendee set out in the bill plainly are sales which pass the title to the property. It is equally, or perhaps more, plain that the contract contemplated sales by retailers, which shall pass an absolute title to the property. The purchaser from a purchaser has an absolute right to dispose of the property. He may consume it, or sell it to another. The plaintiff has contracts from his vendees in regard to the...