| Mich. | Jan 25, 1882
The complainants in this suit constitute the firm of Grow Brothers, doing business as wholesale and retail dealers in ready-made clothing at Bay City. In their bill in this cause they state that previous to the year 1872 the defendant Jacob Seligman was a retail dealer in ready-made clothing at Bay City, carrying it on under the name and style of “Little Jake,” and complainants were clerks, for him; that in that year complainants purchased of him the said business, and also purchased the right to use the name and style of “ Little Jake ” in carrying on and advertising the said business, and in consideration that Seligman would not thereafter sell, transfer or give to any person or firm the right or permission to use the words and name-“Little Jake” in conducting a business at Bay City, and would not again enter into business at Bay City of a similar kind, they paid to him the price agreed upon therefor.
And complainants pray that “ the sole right to use the name £ Little Jake ’ in carrying on and advertising the clothing, hats, caps, and gents’ furnishing goods business at Bay City, may be decreed to belong to and be the exclusive property of your orators, and that the said Jacob Seligman may be perpetually enjoined and restrained from now or
The decree made by the court of chancery, and from which the defendants have appealed, is “ that the ■ said defendants be perpetually enjoined from using in advertising the business of selling clothing, hats, caps and gents’ furnishing goods at Bay City, Michigan, the style and words ‘Little Jake,’ and from in any manner, either singly or in connection with other words, characters, figures or devices using the words ‘Little Jake,’ in carrying on said business at said Bay City, Michigan, and that said defendant, Jacob Seligman, be perpetually enjoined from engaging in or carrying on the business of selling clothing, hats, caps and gents’ furnishing goods, at said Bay City, directly or indirectly, either individually or as copartner in the firm of Little Jake, Bossman & Co., or in any other firm or copartnership by whatever name the same may be called.”
In the argument in this court it is conceded that the contract between complainants and Jacob Seligman, which is set up in the bill, so far as it restrained Seligman from carrying on the business at Bay City was one which it was lawful for the parties to enter into, and a breach of which might justly and properly be enjoined. It is argued, however, that in so far as the contract provides for the use by com
The principle upon which defendants rely is plain enough, and has often been recognized in cases having resemblance to the present in some of their features. Among these cases are Wolfe v. Burke 56 N.Y. 115" court="NY" date_filed="1874-03-24" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/wolfe-v--burke-3620066?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="3620066">56 N. Y. 115; Taylor v. Gillies 5 Daly 285" court="None" date_filed="1874-05-15" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/taylor-v-gillies-6140313?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6140313">5 Daly 285; Palmer v. Harris 60 Penn. St. 156; Meriden Co. v. Parker 39 Conn. 450" court="Conn." date_filed="1872-11-15" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/meriden-britannia-co-v-parker-6579549?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6579549">39 Conn. 450; Connell v. Reed 128 Mass. 477" court="Mass." date_filed="1880-03-17" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/connell-v-reed-6419913?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6419913">128 Mass. 477. But as complainants show by their bill they have for some time been carrying on the business under their own name, and as the decree does not go beyond enjoining the ■defendants from making use of the name “Little Jake” in their own business, we are not called upon to determine whether complainants could or could not be protected in the use by themselves of the same name in their own business. ‘There was nothing illegal in Jacob Seligman agreeing to withdraw altogether from the business at Bay City, and no necessary deception upon the public in his stipulating to •discontinue the use of his previous business name. It is a •breach of this stipulation that the court has enjoined.
It is also urged on the part of the defendants that the •decree is too broad in restraining the defendants Joseph Seligman and Frank Bossman, who were not parties to the contract with complainants, from carrying on their own business in any way or mode which would have been open fo them if no such contract had been in existence. But under the facts shown by the bill and admitted by the •■answer it is plain that the use of the name “Little Jake” in the business of these two defendants at Bay City, would
The decree must be affirmed with costs. It was conceded on the argument that certain clerical errors were committed, in drafting the decree, and these counsel will correct.