The Singer Mfg. Co. v. The Domestic Sewing Mach. Co.

• Decision Date: 31 January 1873
• Citation: 49 Ga. 70
• Parties: THE SINGER MANUFACTURING COMPANY, plaintiff inerr0r. err0r. v. THE DOMESTIC SEWING MACHINE COMPANY et al., defendants in error.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

49 Ga. 70

THE SINGER MANUFACTURING COMPANY, plaintiff inerr0r. err0r. v. THE DOMESTIC SEWING MACHINE COMPANY et al., defendants in error.

Supreme Court of the State of Georgia

(Atlanta, January Term, 1873.)

Injunction. Equity. Libel. Before Judge Hopkins. Fulton county. At Chambers. December 24th, 1872.

The Singer Manufacturing Company, a corporation created under the laws of New York, transacting business in the city of Atlanta, by an agent, filed its bill against the Domestic Sewing Machine Company, a corporation created under the laws of Rhode Island, doing business in the city of Atlanta, by an agent, R. J. Wiles, the agent of said company, Alexander S. Abrams, Henry W. Grady and R. A. Alston, copartners using the firm name of the Herald Publishing Company, and W. A. Hemphill and E. Y. Clark, co-partners, under the firm name of W. A. Hemphill & Company, proprietors of the Atlanta Constitution, a newspaper published in said city of Atlanta, making the following case:

Complainant is engaged in the manufacture and sale of sewing machines. On October 14th, 1872, the Georgia State Agricultural Society held its annual fair in the county of Ful-ton, and invited all persons interested in sewing machines to exhibit them at said fair, under the regulations established by said society, and promised to award a diploma to the manufacturer and proprietor of the best family machine, a diploma to the manufacturer and proprietor of the best manufacturing machine, and a diploma to the manufacturer and proprietor of the machine with the best attachments, said diplomas to bedetermined and awarded by a committee appointed by said society *to inspect sewing machines and to award premiums. Complainant completed for each of the aforesaid diplomas. Many other machines were also presented, and amongst them the one manufactured and owned by the Domestic Sewing Machine Company. Said committee reported the machine of complainant to be the best family machine and the best manufacturing machine, and diplomas were awarded accordingly. Notwithstanding these facts the Domestic Sewing Machine Company has published in the Atlanta Herald, a newspaper owned and controlled by the Herald Publishing Company, and in the Atlanta Constitution, a newspaper owned and controlled by W. A. Hemphill & Company, that the said committee decided and reported that "the Domestic Machine, as a family machine, is the best." Complainant, for the purpose of denying such statement, published the report of the committee as it was rendered. The defendants then published that the report of the committee as set forth by complainant was untrue, and that said committee had reported that the Domestic Machine, as a family machine, was the best. The damages to complainant resulting from the aforesaid publication are inestimable. Prayer, that the writ of injunction may issue, restraining defendants from saying by publication or otherwise that said society did not award the first premiums to complainant for the best family machine, and for the best manufacturing machine. That the writ of subpoena may issue.

The defendants answered the bill, but their defenses are unnecessary to an understanding of the decision of the Court, and are therefore omitted.

The injunction was denied, and complainant excepted.

Hillyer & Brother, for plaintiff in error.

L. E. Bleckley; S. D. McConnell; J. M. Clark & Son, for defendant.

Injunction attaches only to an admitted or legally adjudged property or right in plaintiff—admitted or legally adjudged to be interfered with or infringed by defendant: Adams' Eq., 217. No property can be acquired in words, marks or devices *which indicate only the nature, kind or quality of the article in which a person deals: 2 Story\'s Equity Jurisprudence, 951 (b.) and note; High on Injunctions, 672. As to the rule in regard to trade marks, see Ellis v. Zeilin & Co., 42 Georgia, 91. The report of the committee on sewing machines, at the Fair of the Georgia Agricultural Society, vested no right of property in complainant that could be infringed by defendant: 2 Story\'s Equity Jurisprudence, 941, (note); Adam\'s Equity, 217, note 1, and authorities there cited; Stokes v. Landgraff, 17 Barb, 608.

Equity will not restrain a publication upon the ground merely that it is false and tends to injure business of the plaintiff; nor will it interfere to prevent merely criminal or immoral acts: 2 Story\'s Equity Jurisprudence, 948; High on Injunctions, 23, 689; Wetmore v. Scoville, 3 Edward\'s Chancery Reports, 529. Injunction will not be granted in doubtful or new cases not coming within well...