Martin v. Bowker
| Decision Date | 21 May 1895 |
| Citation | 40 N.E. 766,163 Mass. 461 |
| Parties | MARTIN v. BOWKER. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Thomas C. Bachelder, for plaintiff.
F.H. Williams, Louis D. Brandeis, and William H. Dunbar, for defendant.
This is a bill seeking to enjoin the defendant from using the name of Henry A. Martin in connection with the business of producing and selling animal vaccine virus. The only use of the name which the defendant has made or threatened to make is to describe himself as "Dr. Everett M. Bowker, Successor to Dr. Henry A. Martin & Son."
The plaintiff relies chiefly on Pub.St. c. 76, § 6, forbidding any person to "assume or continue to use in his business the name of a person formerly connected with him in partnership, or the name of any other person" without written consent. But we are of opinion that the statute does not apply to advertising oneself as "formerly with" or "successor to" another. The word "assume" in the statute means use for the first time in the same way that is contemplated in the other branch, "continue to use in his business." The latter plainly means to use as part or all of the partnership name, so as to indicate that the person named is a member of the firm.
Apart from the statute, the plaintiff shows no ground for an injunction. The defendant is a successor to Dr. Henry A. Martin & Son. The history of the business is this: Originally it was carried on by Dr. Henry A. Martin, and afterwards by him and his son Stephen C. Martin, under the name of Dr. Henry A. Martin & Son. In 1876 the father retired, and the son became sole owner of the business by purchase, and carried it on under the same name until his own death, in 1893. By his will, he left it, including the good will, as well as the apparatus and other assets, to his wife, after a life estate which has dropped. The wife sold it to the defendant, and, so far as she had power, gave him the right to use the style and description complained of. Taking the strictest view of what is necessary to make a successor, there is no doubt that the defendant is one; and, this being so, he has a right to advertise the fact to the world. Emerson v. Badger, 101 Mass. 82, 86, 87; Knoedler v. Boussod, 47 F. 465, 466; Knoedler v. Glaenzer, 5 C.C.A. 305, 55 F. 895, 897; Churton v. Douglas, Johns.Eng.Ch. 174, 190.
See Hookham v. Pottage, 8 Ch.App. 91.
Bill dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hanna v. Ken's Foods, Inc., No. 033815 (MA 1/26/2006)
...prohibit a corporation from informing consumers about the history of its development or its predecessors in interest. See Martin v. Bowker, 163 Mass. 461, 462 (1895). The plaintiff has alluded to a "guarantee" appearing on KFI's labels that are affixed to its products, which reads "Satisfac......
-
Hanna v. Ken's Foods, Inc.
... ... a corporation from informing consumers about the history of ... its development or its predecessors in interest. See Martin ... v. Bowker, 163 Mass. 461, 462 (1895) ... The ... plaintiff has alluded to a "guarantee" appearing on ... KFI's labels that are ... ...
-
Kelly v. Morrison
...The plaintiffs concede that if the order of words had been reversed, the defendant would have been within his rights. Martin v. Bowker, 163 Mass. 461, 40 N. E. 766. But the mere sequence of words cannot affect the result. It does not appear that the words designating succession were so plac......
-
Moore v. Rawson
... ... persons are involved, is by advertising as the successor to ... the former firm. The statute permits this. Martin v ... Bowker, 163 Mass. 461, 40 N.E. 766. See, also, Hoxie ... v. Chaney, 143 Mass. 592, 10 N.E. 713, 58 Am. Rep. 149; ... Sohier v. Johnson, ... ...