attitude did not chenge tht fact disclosed by the evidence
that the minde of the perties never met in & mutual xinder*
standing pd to the termc of rale for the 15C tales of almonds.
From February 3rd, 1914, until the triel »'firch,1917, plaintiff
stood on the terms of the original purchase order and at no
tioM before thr trial, contend od or assumed thnt they had been
modified. All this tiirie Costa, ficting for dt^fendants, stood
by hie original propiieition to which the purchase order Aid
not cenforre, and never asncnted to the terms of the latter.
Hew, then, can it be said that their minde ever met whan
during all this time, froai the very beginning of the
negotietions, one party insisted and relied on one under-
standing of the terms made and the other on a different
understanding, each having reason for his particular under-
standing. *e think it clear that the evidence does not
support the court's finding that Russo accepted Costa's
ten&s en March 30. His subsequent letter clearly indicates
the contrary, and as thft purchase order of February Srd
never expressed Coeta's understanding the minds of the
parties never met at any stage of the proceedings with
•«U- to \l^^9l^ B-ra am :gat03*'s«t t^i «K>al ttiil
c'p 9 e cfij is, « • OS oaA «..• . re 1
bsunl *â– â– sf*K
sis^alst -vcOf* to iiot. tofl saw ©aawntt »ii- 'lol^ous siii
•aebatr 'x«Xin>i#'Z44 r±« not noai^oi ^airc
fCiiv •]MlU>*»»«*C« i»ili to AAiiiF: Vfii t'lvmn >
( lO^floo ./fin
•5.
reftpect to the 190 balas.
The only point made a» to the other two oontraets
is not AS to li«l)ility but aa to the competency of the
eridenca of danagea. We think it clear th&t the contract
called for delivery at the foreign port where the market
priee during the period for delivery • allowing def€ndanta
the highest price during that period > showed a decline
of 22 shillinga per cwt. making e. lose of $SC3,5S on the
two contracts. The eTidenoe showed thvt there was no
»£rket price »t the port of delivery other than or different
from that of the foreign port Hfter deducting freight and
eommlssions. In other words, there was no real differ«ne«
of price at the two ports. Hence there will be a reversal
and judgment here against appellant for U-ie amount of the
loss on the two contracts aforesaid as thus established.
RBV .R^iiia) *ITH IflUIUlia 0? FACT AHD
JUDOMiiS'X WUKjL for $SC3.55,
•a.
'icT x^lXi:^«lX 04 SB ton el
^ ' nj^Jtftlo'i ^.w >.«, \;^;•vlX©^ lot Jt«>XX«o
"Vr - - lot boirtaq #ri^ sffitiife s»Xiq[
.M , »i!il:©to1; ..■.!.; moil
riMDlKG OF FACT.
We find that ther* waa no contract entered into
between the parties hereto for the sale of 150 bales of
almondu an cl;^ime1 and described in the stateiaent of
olaiB, either ao originally filed or &e aaended*
oinl btitiiin^ t9a'iif%oo on raw oteiitr ^Hiii boil «W
65 - 2S967
-vvr"
11 I.A. 42
Defendant in/rror,
ISSLRGR TO
â–¼8. \ / ) WmiCUAL COURT
Oy CHICAQO.
i
BOLESLAtJ JASUDBS, '< / )
Pl^Btlff in j£rror, )
\ /
MR. i* Li,aiDIUG JUiJTIC^ 3AHNBS
DELIVl^RED THE OPIKIOK OF THT? COTIRT .
Tiiis vas WQ action in tort wherein Zamulewicx
(plaintiff below) obtained & verdict and judgment against
Jasudes (tiie defendant) on Uie ground that the latter
procured his signature to a contract for the purchaa*
oi' two lots tiircagn fiiiae and fraudulent translation and
Interpretation of the written contract. It is argued
that the evidence does not i^u^tain the charge of fraud,
and that evidence was improperly admitted. There is no
question about the law, and no complaint ia made of the
instructions given.
On a careful examination of the evidence ve find
no oocaeion for aisturbing the judgment. The parties
hereto and tl.eir vritnesses were Lithuanians. Ilaintiff
could neither read nor write English. On the day of hia
arrival in Chicago defendant undertook to negotiate with,
him for the purchase of crid lots and the evidence tends
to shew that he agreed to give a clear title to the lots
on the payment of ^7(0 to be paid in inatailments, plain-
tiff to pay no interest, taxes or special asaeasments.
Preliminary negotiations to that effect were made in the
presence of witnesses, who testified thereto, aoma of ^om
02^ .A.I «■r
\
at imbn9to(X
vaec«: - ^c
,$&x«auiu^^iA& atOLAi
Itaisl'i.
,Gsmya.vx ^i?A.a:s?rdoa
aI
VI visa
on 3- ©•isrif .ho^jiiniiii X-'-'iCSL'" "^'iwiA ""S* aonoiixr tixta
srlJ 'io 9]ijc;i: ui J'niiilqntoo oa iia. , '.oxJaot/p
. as V i s d no iiou'iSu al
ball aw »on9l)i;v© 9ffJ- lo nni;txjnxiraxs Xwlenso ja aO
saiJ-iijq 9rfT . irioaiat^ut odJ snxaiuiai ^oiao.ooo on
lliiniflU , anj3in«W)iixJ 9i»v a3a«onJ'2v -•: ;;
■iri lo x^b stdi . "Qilsnii ©Jiim ion ba^-x iaujX;>a i^iuoo
•Jbnsi' •sriftblTe ox(J boa atoL tin. axiri
8*oX oiW oj- ©I^iJ- ^J09Xo ij av ^.ona oJt
-nlaXq .e^aeaXXsJ^aal nl bXr.q â– nsajxaq axij no
.aiTiameeaQse Xjilo-^qs ^xo u&. ili^
•rW- nt 95am siow *©a1^a d^.eil:^ o* saojt^*l^oso« vtyniiaiXaTcl
â– oiftr lo waos .o^Diari^ bsi'ti^tasJ oxfw ,aaasanJ'2w lo aoafiaaig
-8-
w«re also present when the contract vas brought by de-
fendiuit und read to plaintiff for ai^nature. tlone of the
parties 30 present excopt defendant could read or write
iinglish; whereupon defendant purported to read the con-
tract to plaintiff in their presence before it was signed.
Plaintiff and these witneaaes testified in effect that the
contract ae go read expressly provided that plaintiff was
to pay no interest, taxes or special assesBinenta but was
to obtain a clear title for the sum of 1700. Plaintiff was
about twenty-one years old, and there was •▼idence tending
to show that Jasudes persuaded him that it wus tmneceasary
to have a Iswyer or to show the contract, but that he could
rely upon hie representation of its contents, and got others
in whom he mi^^ht, in his position as a cos^arative stranger,
expect to have a reasonable degiee of confidence, and who
had also purchased lota similarly situated, to ''coax* hin
into the purchase. <tQfiile the contract itself contained no
such provisions, and defendant denied atistransleting it, we
think there was sufficient evidence to ^justify the jury* a
finding of fact that del endant falsely and fraudulently
translated the contract to plaintiff under circuinstancea
warranting plaintiff's reliance thereon and hia exercise of
reasonable prudence, and read into it provisione which it
did not contain, and that plaintiff relying upon such
translation as correct was induced to sign the contract. He
paid |675 thereon and offered tc pay the other ::25, the
balance as ha understood the contract, but the land had been
sold in the meantima for taxes and special asses^irantB, for
#iich he ryfuaed to pay, and without the payment of which
defendant rafuaed to give a deed to the property. The
Tardiet of the Jury was for the auia of sonay he thua paid
an the contract.
-<?â–
^a.t lo ofWK ,%xuiaa^i9 -lo't "iJliniolq, ot bAmi ban iasibtntt
-noo 9ilj bc*n o^ b^iioqiuti soAlnhini) no^u9t%iim ;ilaJ;l3|iA
ftisw ItiioiAiq iJiii;^ Jbs&lvo'i -^rt oa aa i^oa^iooa
axv iutf 9imna(t«BBB» X«lo': , iusiSi/aJ: on ^q[ o^
earn •\^tiaiMi^
^albnttS •oti»i?lv0 caw s^aiii ms^ , .; <iuo4»
bliJ :««X St evoii ei
orfw t jibfiaoo <ano«48»'X k avail oi ;to»q^»
a!ir( "xjiaa" oJ^ ,fi9^«i/^la xltallali bad
XUtmlubuart bna x^oeXat Jn^Jtixxs is.'i iai: ,3kbai\
ti aaolalTOiid >Xd«n««««a
rfoue ffO<j0 afiixi
"-Ci ,s^r»sTM«s««£i XjiooQB Jbaii Buxai lo'i wniirmt'M ■, ^ Jt bXo«
•/IT .x^it*qcT b/i9lt9l>
•s*
The teatiaiony conopl&ined of waa to the efftct
that Jasudes auhs«quently told others thc^t he had agreed
to return plcintiff hia money with intere&t ut 10 per cent
in two yeara if he nae dissatisfied with hie bargain.
There wa» evidence, wl'ich this had eoriie tendency to
corroborate, that the contract as translated by Jasudes
contained such a provision. Hut if not admissible, the
JudgTTient should not be reversed on that account in view
of the fact that there was suff iciont evidence of
fraudulent representations as to other jnattGrs to Justify
the rscovary. The judgment will be «.f firmed.
«e*
271 - 23616
THE OZOBIZKD OX MAR 401
COMPAHY, a corporation.
TS
M. L. BARRiSTT /COMPANY, a
corporation, '~
App«lie«.
Appellan
I,A, 421
APPSAL FROM
MDHICIPAL CniiRi
OF CHICAGO.
MR. JUSaiCa McDOTALD DJfiLIVSRfiD THE QPIHICN 0? THB COURT.
Appellant, the Ozonized Ox llarrow '^onqpany, brought
an action for the value of a quantity of "washed oil of
orange" deliyered to the appellee. The court found the
issues for the defendant, and from the Judgment entered
thereon plaintiff has prosecuted this appeal.
The statement of claim filed on behalf of plaintiff
set forth that its claim was for "washed oil of orange sold
and delivered as per sanqpla to the defendant," etc. The
affidavit of defense alleged substGuitially that plaintiff
had offered to sell to the defendant a certain quantity of
*oil of orange" at a certain price, at which time plaintiff
submitted to defendant a saai^le of a substance wnich plaintiff
informed defendwut ?.as "oil of orange," but that It was
not at that time understood nor did the agreement contemplate
a sale of a product like the sample, but that it was
expressly represented by plaintiff that the product
effered for sale was "oil of orange;" that thereafter
defendant placed an order for 250 pounds of "oil of
orange;" that defendant received from plaintiff 250
poxinds of "washed oil of orange;" that thereupon, within
a reasonable time, defendant notified plaintiff that the
shipment was not in accordance with representations made^
bl9c
\
f)«" Sj j ris . . . , ■iuvv a-:"!
Vi^. -, - - ,.^. - : — tBcfua io^dXIe »aai . .
llliaiisigr tmi* doxi-Sf ;rjs .soiiq ax**-!-©© a d-« "©„ „„ ,_.
•iaiqaw^non J-ns/rssiyij arij' i>j. „.„ bau «Bi_' ,: . , , ...
I0 ilo* lo alJituog oaf
•t-
and thnt it was balng held subject to plaintiff's orders;
and that defendant has erer since been ready and willing
to surrender it to plaintiff.
The eTidence offered on behalf of the plaintiff
tended to show that the shipment in question was not
represented as "oil of orange" in its common acceptation,
but as "oil of orange with something taken from it and
something added to it;" that a eeraple thereof had been
submitted to defendant, i*ho, after an examination of the
â– ample submitted, ordered 250 pounds thereof as per sample;
that it was a sale by sanple only, and that the commodity
Aelirered was in every respect like the sample submitted.
On behalf of the defendant eTidence was adduced
tending to show that plaintiff had offered defendant "oil
of orange" at t>l»75 per pound, - a figure considerably lower
than the then prerailing market price; that defendant agreed
to purchase same at the said price provided it was "oil of
orange" in accordance with the formula of the United iitatet
Pharmacopoeia, a recognized authority en chemical standards;
that plaintiff submitted a saaqple thereof to the desfendant
which had the appearance and aroma of * ">il of orange," where-
upon defendant ordered 250 pounds of "oil of orange" for
imediate delivery; that a few days later defendant received
from plaintiff ten containers each containing 28 pounds of a
substance known as "washed oil of orange," as indicated by
th« markings on the containers and as revealed by a chemical
•Aalysis; that thereupon defendant rejected the shipment,
iMsediately notifying plaintiff that it was being held subject
to its order. The evidence on behalf of defendant further
showed that "washed oil of orange" is an entirely different
product and greatly inferior to "oil of orange."
*«•
. r, i rJ ♦ -« c^ ••! +
â– arf
, ?■- 3 .j v^ .t.-a^Si.; <-; •^ J. *j;
li..' V •^ *
... .-.. ^ -, ,-t '
'••gnmio
' oaJ9 bna ean«^U5»qg« «xl^ hjuf xfaiiiir
ileAT** ISA mronx' •ondc^aeftra
i-MSJ-Aii. ^i.J-j-
â– oTq
•V
Plaintiff contends that the court erred in finding
the issues for the defendant.
It is a well recognised principle of the law of
salet^ that trhere goods are sold by 8aiq>le and representation,
the fact that they conform to the saaple submitted is not
sufficient, but they must be in accordance with the represent-
atirni as well. ( ffabash Canning Co . t. Bicfaolls . 187 111. App.
176 and oases there cited.) Plaintiff, iriiile apparently
eoneeding this, argues that the evidence clearly shows that
this wae a sale by sample only and that the commodity deliyered
to defendant conforned in e^try respect thereto, and that hence
plaintiff was entitled to recorer the yalue thereof. The court
eTidently based its holding upon defendant's theory, tIz., that
the sale in question was upon sample aind representation that the
coBonedity sold was **oil of orange" and that plaintiff delirered
"washed oil of orange" instead; consequently, unless we are
prepared to hold that the finding of the court is clearly and
Banifestly against the weight of the evidence, it cannot be
disturbed. The eVidence on this point was conflicting and for
this reason the oredibility of the witnesses must have been
a determining factor. In such a situation we cannot say
that the finding of the court is clearly and manifestly
against the weight of the evid^ico.
Conq>laint is also .made of the admission of
evidence of a oustoa in the cheioical industry that the term
"oil of orange" can refer to only one certain carmnodity,
viz., that conforming to i,he formula of the United iitates
Pharmacopoeia, because the plaintiff y/^s not in the chemical
•r drug business and therefore could not be charged with
knowledge of any such custois even though it existed. How-
ever, the evidence on behalf of the defeidant showed that
•5.
^>»•5:5'TiI':^ r.tt -a xX'!» ^f^'
ft«*r»vlX$»b ltX^Hii8X<j *»ri.t aac "»J;!i^:«■lo" b«v bXo* x#ii»©ffl«ii)»
««« »w a8«Xnt; .xXinonr^ewoo jfojB- J...;. •'»»irt¥»T*» >e Xto Jsodiiinr*
erf ^ocfxaa ;Ji ,mi>r.9b£ '':'> Jt^.lf>N» •jrfi *«aij9SJ» xXd-sotliuM
.aifcail »A!t ia,Ai
,Y*jI*o««»'»* nlBJtts vino c.f T-lei n»o •agrusTO lo Xio"
aaa^afr bf;*i«'T ^fft -v,-, eXi;arto'5: snlirtolrrot . ,.aXr
XjaolfflOi- "'t*.tttlijXq ftdi ftRi?'in?>rf .^'iffofjcojiarxari-t
— .vntl .iv,-.^aixa .ti iisuorlJ nava on^auo cfoii. baXwoui
naacf 9r.«x( tRS^:" aasa»nJ^jc
XXiesUtta-T h. â–
plaintiff had expretiSly agreed to deliver "oil of orange"
in conformity with aaid fornula. Plaintiff is therefore
In no position to complain of th> admission of this eridenoe*
Other errors have been assigned which we need not
diccuaa, aave to say that they are without merit. There
l>eing no error in the record which Justifies a rerersal,
the Judgment will be affirmed.
AFFIHUjSB.
297 • 23642
2.. SASTOWSKY for use of
Benk of •''/iseonain, &
corporation,
Appellee,
▼■.
iUPPSAL FROM
UTONICIPAL COTTTO
OF CHICAGO .
11 I.A. 422
FIRST NAT I ON Alii BAJSTK 0?
CHICAGO and \
CHICAGO METAL i^IMING
CCil!Pii.NY, & corpoiVution,
Intervening Petitioner ,
igppellcjnjCe
KR. JU^TICJi; UeDOSALIiK^^l^ii^SD TH£ OPINIO^ 0? XH3 COURT.
By this appeal it is eoiight to rereree a judgment
against the First National Bank of Chicago in a garnishiaent
proeeeding "brought for the use of the Bank of Wieeonain, in
vhich the Chicago Metal Refining Cooipany filed a petition as
intcrrening claimant .
Prior to the Taringing cf the gamishment proceeding
the Baid Bank of '^isconain had recovered a Judgment for
upwarda of ^2,000 against Louis Santowsky, up en which execution
was issued and returned no part satisfied. Buhcequently the
First national Bank of Chicago was aerved as gerniehee. Answers
to interrogatories propounded to it revealod that ftt the time
it waa Borvod aa garniwhtje there stood to the credit of the said
SantowBky the aum of |341.71, Tseins a balanca of a chescking
account, subject to prior assignment thereof from the said
oantowsky to the aaid OhiCAQd ]i3etal defining Company, which
sum the said bank hud since paid in full to the said Chicago
Metal Refining Company. On motion of the appellee, the said
Chicago Metal Refining Company was made a party to the suit
as intervening claimant to the said fund.
\
^ K*d€s - res
i.^ a«u 1.
J,\^'^:-
^gi^ ../^ ^-^
SA
1
:^o mT cisaVi
.,.1 ■.:i^•o»oaq
â– f»Vp1»9(f" _s... - >4-. J. vji'i-' - â– â– "â–
bi:
{5 3.-.J)J.Uv»
•8*
At tht oXost of all the eTldence the court found
the Issues fer appellee and ordered the said first National
Bank of Chicago to pay orer to the said Santowsky for the
use of the Bank of tfisoonsin, the said sum of ^941.71.
It Is contended that the court erred in its findings
and in ordering said fund paid to the said c^antowsky for the
use ef the said Bank of Visoonsin.
The action of the court in so finding and ordering
was based up en the theory that the purported assignment of
the fund from the said ^antowsky to the said Chi caf;o Metal
Refining Coapany was Yoid as being in fraud of creditors and
without consideration. Fron e careful examination of the
record, we are of the opinion that the theory of the trial
court was amply sustained by the evidence. Accardiagly the
Judgment will be affirmed.
AFFIRMSD.
*<•
LMttoitaK ^■ii'7 Aia» •ilf bw^fbtn bam tftXX«q:q3 7«1 aMfssi oiit
QSoHrrtit e^l tti b9tt» Sntten •sti tatiJ b9ba«ta<t9 al tl
^di vol x^&watn»^i Jbl«9 «it# o^ &J:«q baiTi blue ^^aJt-xabna nl boa
XaJ-yM o^BoMO Mse anW OJ ^>i«wo^«aV Ii4a« ^fCJ' otOTrl ton.'
oxi^ v:Xj%jal&'xr . • -CTS&iv^ erii x<f 69ai«;^«A.fo -^Xqaa a^v tnioo
323 - 23«68
t\
THS J. U* MOTT ZHOV WQRKii,
» corporation.
lAXHAM ROSiS
ellant*
211I.A. 430
APPKAL FROH
MUNICIPAL COURT
OF CKICAOO.
MR. jnSTZGB MaSCKALD DiSLIVKRSD THIS OPINION OF THS CODHT .
This i« an appeal from a judsaant for 1^1903 *0b
rendered in an action on a promiasory note, in vhich
appellant, fiathan Rosenxweig, was sued as indorser and his
co-defendant, the Maimonides Hospital, as naker; the appeal
heing prosecuted hy Hathan Rosenxweig alone*
The sole question presented for determinKtion
is whether or not the trial court erred In sustaining an
objection to certain evidence offered on behalf of the
appellant. The eTidence tendered related to an agreenent
alleged to have been made by appellee with the said hospital
soBte time prior to the execution of the note in question,
to the effect that in consideration of the sum of $300
appellant, who was a plumbing contractor, was to permit
certain plumbing supplies used in the conetruction of the
said hospital, to be ordered and shipped in his name, and
was to be made payee of the note herein sued upon, which
said note was to be indorsed by him and given in payment
of the aaid supplies, and that no liability was to be
incurred by him on aald note. In our opinion, this evidence
was properly excluded. The general rule is, that the nasM
of the payee on the back of a note is evidenoe th^t he is
an indorser and proves that he hns assumed the liability
of an indorser, as fully as if the agreement had been
08^ 'A.I i -^^
(
. JraKXlfv.
.9itol« sl»w3n»»oH ttMtUM^ysi hwtuptmotq ^Rk9^
rw 3jaliii:«isj./fi ni; feel's* 1^1000 XaI'x^ »fU loa no t ri^»rfw nl
i$£t Tlo TLlMtiMd XK> Jbdi^tlo »en»l>iY9 ttts^'seo o<)^ noi^ofttcTo
l^xxi»ffi9«i:S« A'^ ** b9iBL9t b9r»btmt vonsblTe 9d; .itmli^qqa
Xtt^lqaorf ibiae »<ll /CJl'V »!»lX«qq.jis xd ikam XM*<r •r.ofi e^ b«ai«XX«
DOS| t(B nctfs sriiT lo eni^fiirdibitmo ni indi S^nY'
lAi lo aoi;^9UY^fiici«>9 •$rij ai &«8&r neiXqqtfa anidau/Xq alAit^o
ham ,9n«n «iri oi ^Bqqilifl baa bsnaMe vc; jiqaoxf Mai
tinliiw ^mqu b»u« iriaiad 9ioa 9iii to 9*x«9 ofiAX atf oi «jdw
i-iMMBXAq Ai navi) hnm mhi x'f bawtebni 94 ei asw aioa J»laa
MT ol ajnr x^^-^^*''*'^-'^ ^<i /cxU htm ,eaiXqqya i^i^te arl
•anabiTa airli .nainiqo •:. ,9tQa btmm oo mid x<d baiiuoak
aoban aili iiuCl ,ai aXu'Z Xaiaaa^ •sLt *b9bislt>xj» xXaaqo^q a«w
ai »A i^tU aaoaJbira «i aion a lo 3(a«tf aifi no aa'^sq asU la
\iiXicr«iX af£i baaufaaa ajsif ad #Mifi aaroig ban ftnobeJi aa
•>•
writttn out in vorda* Parol rridenoe la no Bor« adniBslblo
to contradict or rary thia contract than any othor contract.
Johnaon y. Qlover . 121 111. 283.
There Italng no error In the record which juatifiea
a rereraal the Judgment will be affirmed.
AyyZRMBS.
«fi*
£49 • S3&94
AUTO PARTS COUP
corporation, \
App^llOO,
lOSSPH SlLV^nSTiSII
fiAII QOODMAfi,
AppOllailtl.
Af'PKAL FROM
StlPBRIOR COURT,
COOK COIWIY.
211I.A. 436
MR. JUSTICE MATCMSTT fiSLZyjSnXO THS SPlFaOK CF TH8 COTTRT .
This is aa appeal froa a deoroe onterod Toy thM
court in favor of the coaqplainant, tho Auto Parts Coopany,
a oerpor.-^tion of Illinois, which suod ap iollants Josoph
bilTorstoin and Saa Goodnan as copartners.
The bill of cosqplaint chifrgecJ unfair coapetition.
It alleged that complainant, an Illinois corporation, was
for many years engaged in the buslnoas of buying aad oellins
secondhand autoaobiles, parts, supplies, etc.; that by
the eaqpenditure of large suns of sioney for adyertising and
by fair dealing, a large and luoratiTe business was acquired
bj it in tho United i^tates and foreign countries; that the
defendants ^ilrerstein and Goodaan afterwards became
asseoiated in a aiailar business taking the firm na»0 and
style of "Auto Sales and Parts Coopany**; that the naae was
so siailar to that of complainant as to cause customers of
eoaplainant to belieye while dealing with def f«»dants that
they were dealing with eoaplainant; that defendants were
notified of the confusion resulting froa the use of this
naae, but nererthelesa continued so to use it and were doing
so for the purpose of causing confusion and for the
fraudulent purpose of misleading eoaplainant 's customers.
\
/
/
.Ytair-o 3(000
bQj^ •ii*^ jL i s ^ • -^^^'^
tai^xU'XAi^s aa nmabom} man htiA aiBtvtaylt^
soil let J^«» jgniy^ tio aa«/UN' t; .em^^cE^ »is9\ xsum -lOl
9dS iiii ;«»i'x^mrod n^ia'sel bits net^t** husltiV 9tii nt &i. \(f
tt«v ftOUMt ddLt i^iLi i*xnMqmt>-:) H$-t»% hsuM »»X«e oiuA" lo sX^^a
iikH-i »43Mbm1ifh fltlw ^isll»9h 9ilAw »YalX«tf o^ ;^n«nl*X^eo
BirLt 1c UdM »rW iiiBt^ 3|«ti #Xxj«»i aoiiKUtiK :> fcajtliloo
»*!• -a noisulnoy :j.5fti«if«o "J* oaocfiuq aiCf tPt ca
►^awo «*JCMi!ri»Xj«H«D ^ttftitiaoXalis "io »6«qaui( i?flaX*rfcff4-xl
-!•
The answer of the defendants denied that the naae
"Auto Sales & Parts Conpany" was similar to that of "Auto
Parts Cooq^any" and donied that confusion resulted from the
use of the same, or that they were guilty of the unfair
deauLing as charged.
The cause was referred to a aaster who in his report
found the business of coniplalnant was begun in 1906 and incor-
porated two years thereafter; that it had grown until in the
year 1915, its business totaled ^730,000; that it was the
largest concern in the world selling auto parts end had an
excellent reputation for square dealing and good serrice; that
the defendants originally conducted a Junk business which later
was combined with the sale of auto parts and accessories at
one business, and that the business transacted by them amounted
to about $25,000 per year; that there was confusion as to the
identity of the two organizations; that the resemblance of the
names was calculated to deceiye the ordinary, ereryday person;
that defendants had not acted in good faith; that orders sent
through the mail were mixed and confused; that people had been
and were likely to be induced to deal with the Auto iSales St
Parts Company with the idea that they were purchasing goods of
the Auto Parts Coaqiany and defendants had so conducted them-
selres as to aid in this deception. The report recommended
an injunction and the chancellor entered a decree in accordance
with its recommendaticns and the prayer of the bill.
The law applicable to cases of this kind has been
often annoxinced. A corporation in business is entitled to