Jenkins v. Eliot
| Decision Date | 21 June 1906 |
| Citation | 192 Mass. 474,78 N.E. 431 |
| Parties | JENKINS v. ELIOT. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
William H. Preble, for complainant.
Adams & Blinn, for defendant.
This is a bill in equity, filed in the superior court on October 18 1905, in which the plaintiff seeks to restrain the defendant from carrying on the millinery business in Boston, and to recover damages by reason of the carrying on of such business. The defendant filed an answer containing a demurrer. The judge of the court below found the following facts, and reserved the case on the demurrer and the facts for our consideration, leaving the question of damages for further proceedings.
The defendant and one Carolyn A. Webb, on February 9, 1905, and for a considerable time prior to that date, carried on a millinery business as copartners under the name of Eliot & Webb, at No. 100 Boylston street, Boston, Mass. On that day the defendant and Webb sold to the plaintiff and one L. M Prescott certain stock in trade and the good will of the business, handed to them a list of customers and, subject to certain conditions, agreed with them not to engage in the millinery business in Boston for the term of 10 years from that date, and agreed during the term to allow them to carry on the business under the name of Eliot & Webb. The plaintiff and Prescott as copartners carried on the millinery business at the location until August 26, 1905, when they dissolved their copartnership, and Prescott sold her interest therein to the plaintiff. The plaintiff thereupon, on August 26th, formed a new copartnership with one Harriet F. Dearborn for the purpose of carrying on the millinery business and transferred to Dearborn a half interest therein; and as copartners they have since carried on the business and Prescott has not since been engaged in the millinery business in Boston. On October 12, 1905, the defendant re-engaged in the millinery business in Boston at No. 739 Boylston street, and has since continued to carry on such business, and has sent cards to several of the persons whose names appeared in the list hereinbefore referred to.
Evidence was introduced by witnesses tending to show that persons who had formerly traded with Eliot and Webb and thereafter had traded with Prescott and Jenkins had ceased to trade with the plaintiff and had purchased of the defendant since the sending of the cards by the defendant. The judge found as a fact that the defendant has solicited and obtained trade from persons whose names were upon the list of customers delivered by her with the bill of sale February 9, 1905.
The first contention of the defendant is that Prescott should have been a party to the bill. By the agreement of August 26 1905, between the plaintiff and Prescott, the latter sold,...
To continue reading
Request your trial