Εικόνες σελίδας
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

against a sort of testimony which the law itself iu- and otbers, respondents, v. J. F. Peck and another, sists shall not be taken without other proof? Is it not impleaded, etc., appellants. — Judgment affirmed an error radically injurious to the rights of the de- with costs-William H. Waring and others, respondfendant?

ents, v. Moses Chamberlin, appellant.-Judgment OSWEGO, N. Y..

G. T. C. affirmed with costs-Cornelius S. Groot and others,

respondents, v. Frederick G. Agens, appellant.

Appeal dismissed with costs-John G. Harhottle and SUBSTITUTING ANSWER FOR DEMURRER BY WAY OF

another, appellants, V. John Farrel and others, reAMENDMENT.

spondents. Judgment affirmed with costs—Elisha Editor of the Albany Law Journal:

M. Shurtleff, respondent, v. Utica & Black River RailIn January, 1885, the General Term in the First De | road Company, appellant.- Judgment affirmed with partment of the Supreme Court, composed of Judges | costs-Jobu 1. Hamilton, appellant. v. William AusDaris, Brady and Daniels, held (Carpenter v. Adams,

tin and another, respondents. — Order of the Gen34 Hun, 429) that an answer could be substituted for a eral Term affirmed, and judgment rendered against deinurrer by way of an amendment. The General | the appellauts on the stipulation with costs-EquitaTerm in the same department, in May, 1887, com- ble Life Insurance Company of the United States, re. posed of Judges Van Brunt, Brady and Daniels, held | spondents, v. Charles Van Glohn, impleaded, etc., ap(Smith v. Laird, 44 Hun, 530) that an answer could pellants.-Judgment affirmed with costs-Frank not be served by way of an amendmeut to a demur Harding, respondent, v. New York, Lake Erie and rer. Judges Brady and Daniels concurred in both de Western Railway Company, appellant.-Judgment cisions, a.id no reference is made in the latter to the

no reference is made in the latter to the affirmed witb costs—Theodore Wackerman, respoud. former case.

ent, v. John F. Kenner, appellant. — Judgment modi. Is not the earlier case the more sound of the two?

fied by conforming the interest to the statutory rate Yours,

after January 1, 1880, and as modified affirmed with THOMAS CARTER.

costs-David F. Day, respondent, v. James C. Strong, NEW YORK, October 17, 1887.

impleaded, etc., appellaut. — Judgment of General Torm affirming order of Special Term denying peremptory mandamus and other proceedings affirmed,

with leave to apply to the Supreme Court for the trial of NEW BOOKS AND NEW EDITIONS.

the issues forthwith before one of the justices thereof,

or in such other way as the parties day agree upon MCGRATH ON CY PRES.

and the court shall approve of--People, ex rel. John The doctrine of Cy Pres as applied to charities. Being the Mackin and another, appellants, v. Board of Police of

Meredith Prize Essay of the University of Pennsylvania the City of New York, respondents. Order affirmed for the year 1887. By Robert Hunter McGrath, Jr. T. & with costs, with leave to apply to the court for leave J. W. Johnson & Co., Philadelphia, 1887. Pp. 74.

to answer-Thomas Swords and others, respondents, This is an unusually elegant and scholarly essay. If v. Northern Light Oil Company and others, appellants. writteu, as we suppose, by a young man, it gives signs - Appeal dismissed with costs-Tu re Application of of remarkable promise, and we shall expect to hear Niagara Falls & Whirlpool Railway Company to acmore of its author. The volume is an exceedingly at

quire lands. — Appeal dismissed with costs—Thomas tractive specimeu of typography.

M. King and others, respondents, v. Reon Barnes and others, appellants. —Six motions decided, viz, : First, appeal from interlocutory judgment dismissed with

costs; second, appeal from General Term allowing RAWLE ON COVENANTS OF TITLE.

amendment of complaint dismissed with costs; tbird, The fifth edition of this excellent and well-estab appeal from the order denying stay of proceedings lished text-book is now issued by Little, Brown & Co., dismissed with costs; fourth, motion to amend reand forms a handsome volume of about 750 pages.

mittitur denied; fifth, motion to consolidate appeals The work stands in uo need of apology or of praise.

denied; and, sixth, motion to stay proceedings deIn its peculiar branch it is unsurpassed, indeed un nied–Thomas M. King and others, respondents, F. rivalled. The author bas carefu''y reconsidered the Reon Barnes and others, appellauto. — Appeal diswhole work, and especially the chapter on estoppel, and

missed with costs-Jennie E. Wells, respondent, y. has referred to the late authorities.

Henry H. Wells, appellant.- Order affirmed with costs-In re Application of Erastus H. Munson, etc.

-Appeal dismissed with costs-. Amanda H. Pugsley, SCHOULER ON BAILMENTS AND CARRIERS.

respondent, v. Perrin H. Sumner and others, appel

lants.- Motion for reargument denied with costsThe second edition of this work forms a volume of

Charles S. Archer, respondent, v. New York, New some 850 pages, and is from the house of Little, Brown

Haven & Hartford Railroad Company, appellant.& Co. We found the first edition worthy of high

Motion to ameud granted with costs-Bowker Fertilpraise, and the present has all the advantages of a re

izing Company v. Lawrence N. Cox.-Motion to view, and embraces the recent authorities. The ar

amend remittitur granted by awarding costs to the rangement is improved by division into sections, with

city alone, without costs of motion-In re District head-lines, for which the author's half-way apology is

Railroad Company. -Motion to dismiss denied with. unnecessary. The work is of solid merit. It em

out costs-Julius Forsman v. Ruth A. Schulting: braces the subjects of Innkeepers and Pledge.

Motion to dismiss appeal denied with $10 costsJames A. Farley v. Mutual Life Iusurance Company. -Motion to dismiss appeal denied with $10 costs

Daniel A. Zimmer v. David Little. - Motion to open COURT OF APPEALS DECISIONS.

default granted on condition that the appellant file

the return, serve printed cases, pay the costs, the THE following decisions were handed down Tuesday, |

judgment entered on default, and $10 costs of this 1 Oct. 25, 1887:

motion, within twenty days. Otherwise denied with Judgment affirmed with costs-Theodore D. York | costs-Schwar v. Weber.

The Albany Law Journal.

dence unless he was bound to answer under section seventy-nine of the Penal Code. That section reads as follows: “A person offending against any pro

vision of any foregoing sections of this Code relat-. ALBANY, NOVEMBER 5, 1887.

ing to bribery is a competent witriess against an

other person so offending, and may be compelled CURRENT TOPICS.

to attend and testify upon any trial, hearing, pro

ceeding or investigation, in the same manner as any MAE argument of the Sharp case in the Court of

other person. But the testimony so given shall not T Appeals was made last week by Messrs. Cock

be used in any prosecution or proceeding, civil or

criminal, against the person so testifying." ran, Paige and Stickney, for the appellant, and


counsel claimed that this section compelled him to Mr. Nicoll and Judge Comstock, for the people. Only two points were pressed on the oral argument.

testify, and prohibited the use of his testimony The first was the exception to the admission of evi

against him. The people's counsel answered that dence of Sharp's attempt, in 1883, to bribe Pottle,

| this enactment refers to “investigations,” etc., in the reading clerk of the Assembly, to alter a bill

courts of justice, and does not include legislative so as to include the Broadway Surface Railroad.

investigations; and that on the investigation in On behalf of Sharp it was argued that this was a

| question Sharp was not a “ witness against another distinct and independent crime, and the evidence

person so offending," but only against himself, and

therefore at liberty to plead his constitutional priviwas incompetent, as for example, on a trial for rape, evidence of rape on another person, or on a trial for

lege of exemption from self-crimination, and neg

| lecting so to plead it he waived it, and testified perjury, evidence of another perjury, is inadmissi

voluntarily. To which the counsel of Sharp replied ble to prove the commission of the offense in ques

| that the letter of the section, on which he has a tion, or to prove a propensity or tendency to commit the crime in question. To which the answer

right to rely, clearly embraces legislative investiga

tions, and that the word was added to “trial, hearwas made that such evidence is competent, although it may show another crime, when the act sought to

ing, proceeding," for that purpose, and not tautobe proved is part of the res geste, or of a series of

| logically, and that the word has been used by the similar or nearly contemporanevus crimes, or to

Legislature to denote nove but legislative investi

gations in one hundred and seventeen instances of show motive or probability, in order to overcome

the one hundred and twenty in which it has been the presumption of innocence; that Sharp had been

| employed in statutes; and they argued that the trying for thirty years to procure the enactment of such legislation as a necessary preliminary, and that

spirit and intent of the enactment is to induce the it was a fair deduction that a man who would resort

guilty to inform on the pledge that they shall

themselves be absolved. to bribery for that purpose would resort to bribery of the aldermen to procure their consent to the effectuation of such legislation, as charged in the in

It will be perceived that these questions, esdictment. Thus a man charged with rape may be

pecially the latter, are serious and difficult. They shown to have previously attempted rape on the

were argued for five hours, and this fact alone is same person, and a man charged with false pre

a complete answer to the criticisms on the judges tenses may be shown to have used the same or simi

who have granted the stays. Judge Comstock lar pretenses at about the same time to other per

| himself in his opening went out of his way to desons. That although the evidence in question

" clare his opinion that the prosecution had been tended to prove another crime, yet it was a crime

conducted with reasonable expedition, and that to the same special end, and thus like a previous

Sharp had been accorded nothing more than his attempt to commit rape on the same person. We

legal right. Let the newspapers put that in their suppose if the evidence offered had been of a pre

pipes and smoke it. In addition to the points orvious bribery, or attempt at bribery of the same al

ally dwelt upon were two not adverted to, upon dermen or other aldermen, there would be no ques

one, if not both of which, Sharp must be entitled tion of its competency, and the only doubt now is

to a new trial, unless this court has the marvellous whether the attempt to bribe the Assembly clerk to

vision of the court below, which enabled them to effect the same general end is distinguishable.

| see that the admission of the evidence in question “could not have hurt him.”

The other point, and that on which the greater stress was laid, was the exception to the admission If the crowd of spectators on this argument exof Sharp's evidence before the legislative commit- pected to hear shining or striking addresses, or tee appointed to investigate the procurement of the any thing beyond the fair average of professional Broadway Surface Railroad bill. It was conceded ability, either in reasoning, or rhetoric, or declamathat Sharp did not plead his privilege to refuse to tion, they must have gone away disappointed. answer to the committee on the ground of self-The arguments were all conversational and unimcrimination. It was conceded also that this omis passioned. There was not an especially good or sion was fatal to his present objection to the evi- | attractive speaker among the counsel. Mr. Cock

Vol. 36 -— No. 19.

ran came nearest the mark in this respect, but he is whisky-swilling, horse-racing, cock-fighting, prizetoo rapid for the best effect - probably also embar- | fighting, theatre-going, ball-playing, and general rassed by the limitation of time. His argument "cussedness." We would have it a day for rest of was also decidedly the best, both in substance and body, peace of soul, quiet entertainment of mind, in expression; in point of rhetoric it was quite pol- association with nature, communion with God; a ished but not over-wrought. Mr. Nicoll is a bright day for law-abiding, order-loving, God-fearing men; young man, undoubtedly entitled to great credit the Sunday ordained by God and granted us by for the preparation and trial of this important our fathers. Open Sunday to the common sale of cause, but not yet quite at home in the style of ar- rum and you give the devil a tremendous fulcrum gument best adapted and usually addressed to this for his pitchfork. Within ten miles of where we are court. On all the speakers except Messrs. Cock writing there are two thousand groggeries, which are ran and Stickney we must make the criticism that now open on Sunday only by stealth and in defiance they were too long in getting at and coming to the of law. Give their keepers a legal right to sell point. Like scoring horses they tire themselves their death-dealing draughts on Sunday, and you and the audience before they start. Counsel should will increase the crime, vice, poverty, misery, inassume that the court know something of a case sanity and wretchedness of this region beyond comafter it has been stated to them for an hour by a putation. “Personal liberty,” forsooth! Has any lawyer like Mr. Cockran. Counsel are almost al man a right to kill himself? Or to help another ways too long in argument. This case might have commit suicide? Or to sell poison without precaubeen better and more impressively argued in two tion or restrictions? Or to keep powder where and hours than in five. Such "damnable iteration" as he pleases? Or to carry on a noxious or noisome simply serves to stun the perceptions of the judges. trade, to the danger or discomfort of his neighbors? But it takes a master to make a short argument. By and bye, we shall have an appeal for “ personal Nicholas Hill could do it, and so could Charles liberty” to keep opium dens, or houses of prostituO'Conor. While this argumentation was going on tion, as is now done in Paris. Why not? “A we thought of and longed to hear those great men, large class of the community want them," and or John H. Reynolds, Henry Smith, John K. Porter, why not give them what they want? This Rum James C. Carter, William A. Beach, or some of the power is tremendous, a Moloch to which this other intellectual giants to whom we have listened country offers up a money tribute of seven hunentranced.

dred millions a year - enough to pay off the

national debt in three years — of which four hunThere is a new political party in this country. It dred millions is clear profit, going into the pockets is composed exclusively of brewers, distillers and of these brewers, distillers and grog-sellers, who rumsellers. It calls itself the “Personal Liberty" are not content with their gaivs and are crying for party. This avowedly means nothing more nor less more. The impudence and shamelessness of these than the right to sell rum and make men drunk on creatures! Is there any honest and orderly merSunday just as on week days. The purpose of this chant, or manufacturer, or tradesman, who is departy is to abolish the Sunday laws so far as they manding “personal liberty” to do business on prohibit the opening of liquor stores and saloons on Sunday? Not one. Nobody is discontented with Sunday. To deceive the public, in this State the our Sunday laws except that most dangerous class founders of this party have added the pretended who make our criminals and paupers, corrupt our purpose of opening the museums and libraries on politics, fill our prisons, our poor-houses, our dens Sunday; but as there is no law against that, the trick of prostitution, and our insane asylums; to enrich will not avail. Here is a serious question, which whom murder, lust, cruelty, poverty and ignorance concerns every lawyer and layman. The question are permitted to exercise their dark sway; who is, shall Sunday be abolished ? Shall we have a grow fat and kick while wives and widows weep, genuine Witches' Sabbath, or an orderly, christian children mourn and starve, and poor girls sell their Sunday! Shall we open this day to the enemies souls and their bodies. Again we say, the impuof public morals and the debauchers of common dence, the shamelessness, the wickedness of these virtue, or shall it continue to be a season of needed | men! Unaccountable on any hypothesis except rest, peace, recuperation, reflection and worship? | that Quem Deus vult perdere, prius dementat. Rum We are no puritan, ascetic or precisian; not even a / is a great power; party politics is a great power; “total abstainer.” We would not have Sunday a but there is a greater, and that is the aroused popuday of gloom and penance and dread. We would lar conscience, which will assert its rule and teach not send a poor shoemaker to prison for hoeing a | these men to hide themselves; that they exist only few hills of corn in his door-yard at eight o'clock on sufferance; and that if necessary those who love on Sunday morning, nor send a farmer to prison law and virtue will put their foot upon their necks, for gathering seaweed on a beach, several miles as St. George crushed the wriggling dragon. from any house, at ten o'clock on Sunday night, as was done twenty years ago in Massachusetts. On the other hand, we would not have Sunday a day Mr. Charles C. Soule, the well known law-book for noisy amusement, riot, debauchery, wages-wast-seller of Boston, whose shop has the odor of sancing, and crime-sowing; a day for beer-guzzling, tity belonging to the late Freeman street chapel, has issued a catalogue of his publications, with por | highway unknown to the driver, but known to a traits of the authors, including Messrs. Wood, Schou- passenger, causes an injury to both. By informing ler, Stimson, Chamberlayne, B. V. Abbott, Ewell, the driver the accident would have been avoided, Jones, Sheldon, Indermaur, Cohen, Henry Austin, and the passenger was chargeable with negligence and another - a fine array of intellectual beauty, in failing to give the information. The passenger excepting that other.

cannot recover; would his negligence preclude the driver, who was in no fault, from recovering? A

traveler on foot is responsible only for his own negNOTES OF CASES.

ligence. Why should a traveler in a carriage be

held responsible not only for his own negligence IN Noyes v. Town of Boscawen, New Hampshire | but also for the negligence of a driver over whom I Supreme Court, July 15, 1887, it was held that in he has no control? It is contended that towns are an action against a town for personal injuries received | only required to keep their highways safe for careby the plaintiff from a defective highway while rid- ful driving, and therefore a passenger is necessarily ing in another's carriage, by invitation of the latter, affected by the driver's negligence. There is no the negligence of the driver, contributing to the in- | absolute legal test of the sufficiency of a highway. jury, does not amount to contributory negligence of Like the question whether a person is a traveler the plaintiff where the plaintiff was in no fault in upon the highway, it is ordinarily a question of riding with the driver, and in no way controlled, or fact. Varney V. Manchester, 58 N. H. 430. A could control, his management of the team. The highway is not required to be entered free from decourt said: “The question whether the negligence fects, but it must be suitable for the travel thereon. of the driver, over whoni a passenger has no con- Gen. Laws, chap. 75, § 1. It must be reasonably trol, is a bar to an action by the passenger for in- safe. But it cannot be said, as matter of law, that juries caused by an insufficient highway, has never a highway sufficient with a safe borse, carriage and been directly raised or determined in this State. driver, is a reasonably safe highway; nor that a It has sometimes been assumed, without being highway, to be reasonably safe, must be sufficient questioned, that the passenger was responsible for to prevent accidents with a vicious horse, a defecthe driver's care. The question can only arise in tive carriage, or a careless driver. The fact that an cases where the passenger has no authority or con- injury to a traveler on a highway was caused by the trol over the driver, and where the relation of mas- combined effect of the unsafe condition of the road ter and servant or principal and agent does not ex- and the negligence of a third person is no defense ist between the passenger and driver. It does not to the party who is bound to keep the highway in arise in an action by the owner of a team injured repair. Shear. & Red. Neg.; Winship v. Enfield, 42 by a defective highway while in the possession and N. H. 197; Norris v. Litchfield, 35 id. 271; Cooley control of a bailee. Property cannot of itself exer- Torts, 684. A traveller is required to exercise reacise care, or be guilty of negligence. It has no sonable care in the use of a highway, in the selecrights or duties independent of the owner; and astion of his horse, harness and carriage; and if he towns are liable for damages happening to travelers exercises such care, the fact that the vices of the only, the owner of a team injured by a defective | horse, or defects in the harness or carriage, may highway, to recover against the town, must show have concurred with the unsafe condition of the that at the time of the injury it was being used for highway in causing an injury, is no defense to the traveling purposes, and managed with reasonable town. Clark v. Barrington, 41 N. H. 44; Tucker care, and therefore the owner is bound by the de- v. Henniker, 41 id. 317. In harmony with this rule, gree of care exercised by the party to whom he has and upou principle, we think that a traveler should intrusted the care of his property. To recover for a be held to the exercise of reasonable care only in personal injury a traveler must show that he was per- the selection of a driver; and being in no fault in sonally exercising due care; and to recover for an the choice of his conveyance, and having no coninjury to property it must appear that the property trol over the management of the team, he should was used and managed with due care at the time not be held responsible for the negligence of the the injury was received. Hence cases for injury to driver which he could not reasonably anticipate or a horse or carriage in the control of a bailee, like prevent. In Plummer v. Ossipee, 59 N. H. 55, which Norris v. Litchfield, 35 N. H. 271; Cummings v. was an action by a wife for injuries from an obCenter Harbor, 57 id. 17; and Stark v. Lancaster, id. struction in a highway while riding with her hus88, are not authority for the doctrine that a passen- / band, the defendant claimed that the husband was ger, personally exercising due care, is necessarily a fast and careless driver, and introduced in evichargeable with the negligence of the driver ordence particular instances of his fast and careless manager of the vehicle in which he was riding. In driving, and subject to exception, the plaintiff was the absence of any relation of master and servant, | permitted to testify to other instances of his careor principal and agent, when each is independent ful driving when she had been riding with him; of control by the other, why should a passenger be and it was held that the evidence was relevant to chargeable with the driver's negligence any more the husband's character for driving safely or otherthan the driver with the passenger's negligence? wise, and was also relevant to the question of the In traveling in the night, an obstruction in the plaintiff's negligence in selecting a suitable driver

on the occasion of the accident." See Borough of and thereby subject him to the legal consequences Carlisle v. Brisbane, 113 Penn. St. 544; S. C., 57 of that relation, because he could not have bound Am. Rep. 483, and note, 488.

himself in the premises by an express contract with the defendant, and hence cannot be deemed to

have assented by implication to that relation and Ormsby v. Rhoades, Vermont Supreme Court, its consequences. But this is not so, for an infant Oct. 15, 1887, was an action to recover for services can bind himself by an express contract for necesby an infant to a person to whom he had been in saries, and if by an express contract, then by an trusted by the poormaster, and who had supported implied contract as well; and surely food and shelhim in his family. The action was defeated, the ter, care and nurture, in the defendant's house, court saying: “It is not true that in order to en- were necessaries for the plaintiff in his circumtitle the defendant to be treated as having stood in stances. Thus, in Stone v. Dennison, 13 Pick. 1, an loco parentis to the plaintiff, he must at the time | infant contracted specially to serve the defendant have had the legal custody of his person, and have till of age for his board, clothes and education, and been bound to support, protect and educate him; it was held that he could not repudiate the conand Blackstone and Kent, cited to that proposition, tract and recover for his services, because they do not sustain it, and the cases are the other way. were shown to be worth more than the stipulated Thus, in the absence of any statutory provision im- compensation. The case was put upon the ground posing the obligation, a step-father is not bound to that the contract was for necessaries. In Williams maintain his step-children, and consequently is not v. Hutchinson, 3 N. Y. 312, the assent of an infant entitled to their earnings, nor the control of their to an arrangement to waive the right to claim persons. Tubb v. Harrison, 4 T. R. 118; Cooper v wages for his services was implied from the parental Martin, 4 East, 76; Freto v. Brown, 4 Mass. 675; relation the defendant sustained to him when they Bartley v. Richtmyer, 4 N. Y. 38; 2 Kent Comm. were rendered. We take it to be sound law that 192. But yet he may stand in a partial relation to whenever one stands in the relation of a parent to them, and if he takes them into his house, and they an infant who needs his care and support, and become a part of his family, he will be deemed to faithfully discharges the duties of that relation, stand in such relation, and to be entitled and re- there being no express contract to the contrary, nor sponsible accordingly as long as that relation exists. | any circumstances showing a different understandStone v. Carr, 3 Esp. 1; Lord Ellenborough, ining or expectation of the parties, there can be no Cooper v. Martin, 4 East, 76, 82; 2 Kent Comm. 192. recovery for services on the one hand, nor for care But when they cease to be members of his family, and support on the other, though one happens to as they may at will, then whatever custody and be worth more than the other.” Taft, J., dissented. control he had of them is gone, and his rights and liabilities on account of his former relation to them cease, and they cannot recover of him for services

In Olmsted v. Rich, tried at the Delaware Circuit rendered while that relation existed, though minors

in this State, on the 26th of September, 1887, beat the time, and though their services be worth

fore Justice Boardman and a jury, the complaint more than their support, unless there was an express

was by the occupant of a village lot against his agreement to that effect, or something to show that

next-door neighbor for a nuisance in the keeping of such was the understanding or expectation of the

bees, which came upon the plaintiff's premises to parties, for in such circumstances a promise to pay

his annoyance. The jury found the matter a wages will not be implied. Williams v. Hutchinson,

nuisance, and awarded six cents damages, and the 3 N. Y. 312. The relation rebuts such an implica

court granted a permanent injunction commanding tion. In Manvell v. Thomson, 2 Car. & P. 303, an uncle who had brought up a niece, but of whom

the removal of the bees and against the further the case does not show he had legal custody, was

keeping of them. held to stand in loco parentis to her; and on showing the smallest degree of service, was allowed to

TRADE-MARK -"BENEDICTINE"-ASSIGNrecover damages for her seduction, the same as a

MENT-ALIENAGE. father. And in Irwin v. Dearman, 11 East, 23, the plaintiff, who had taken into his family, and bred

SUPERIOR COURT OF CINCINNATI. up for several years, the daughter of a deceased friend, was allowed to recover damages for her se

SociéTÉ ANONYME DE LA DISTILLERIE DE LA BENEduction ultra the mere loss of service, on the ground

DICTINE V. MICALOVITCH, FLETCHER & COMPANY. that he stood in loco parentis to her. So in Hag. Benedictine" is a valid trade-mark for a liquor invented by gerty v. Me Canna, 25 N. J. Eq. 48, a step-father,

and made after a recipe of the Benedictine monks, al

though used by an assignee of the original proprietor having voluntarily assumed the care and support of

whose name is employed in the labels, without disclosing his step-daughter, was not allowed compensation

the change of proprietorship, and although such assignee for her support, because he stood in loco parentis to is a French alien who has not deposited a duplicate her. It is further contended that because the copy of the trade-mark in Paris. plaintiff was an infant therefore the defendant ACTION for injunction against infringement of a could not stand in the relation of a parent to him, | A trade-mark. The opinion states the case.

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »