« PrejšnjaNaprej »
LAW JOURNAL REPORTS
THE YEAR 1896.
The House of Lords and in the Priby Council,
The Court of Appeal and the Court for Crown Cases Reserved.
THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
Chancery; Queen's Bench; and Probate, Divorce, and
W. E. GORDON AND A. J. SPENCER.
CHANCERY DIVISION, VOL. LXT.
WITH LAW REP.  1 CH. ; [1896) 2 CH. ; AND LAW REF. (1896] A. (.]
Law Publishers and Booksellers.
LAW JOURNAL REPORTS
THE YEAR 1896
in the House of Lords
(ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL IN ACTIONS
IN THE CHANCERY DIVISIOM),
JAMES EYRE THOMPSON,
Court of Appeal
(ON APPEAL FROM THE CHANCERY DIVISIOM),
AUBREY JOHN SPENCER, AMYAND JOHN HALL, and
HENRY CHARLES ROPER,
AND. IN THE
THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE,
MR. JUSTICE CHITTY
R. B. SCHOMBERG and H. F. AMEDROZ MR. JUSTICE NORTH
J. E. HORNE and G. R. ALSTON MR. JUSTICE STIRLING
W. A. G. WOODS and ARTHUR LAWRENCE
W. I. COOK
[IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS.] will of his business, or one in the position 1895.
ANNA TREGO AND W. W. of the respondent who has been taken June 25, 27, 28. SMITH (appellants) v. into partnership on the terms that on the
Dec. 5. G. S. HUNT (respondent). expiration of the partnership the goodwill Partnership-Right of Partner to take
shall belong solely to his partner, is at Extracts from Books of Firm—Solicita
liberty to solicit the old customers of the tion of Customers of Old Firm by Retiring preference over his former partner.
business to give their custom to him in Partner-Injunction.
The facts sufficiently appear in Lord A partner who has no share in the good- Herschell's judgment. will of the business is not entitled during the partnership to extract from the books of June 25, 27, 28.-Graham Hastings, the firm the names and addresses of cus
Q.C., and H. H. Cozens-Hardy, Q.C. tomers for the purpose of soliciting such (0. Leigh Clare with them), for the apcustomers on his own behalf after the termi- pellants.-A man cannot derogate from nation of the partnership.
his own grant, or as Lord Romilly, M.R., Decision of the Court of APPEAL (64 said in Labouchere v. Dawson (1), depreLaw J. Rep. Chanc. 392; Law Rep. ciate what he has sold. The earliest de(1895] 1 Ch. 462) reversed.
cisions on the subject are those of Lord Labouchere v. Dawson (41 Law J. Rep.
Eldon in Shackle v. Baker (2), Cruttwell Chanc. 427; Law Rep. 13 Eq. 322) ap
v. Lye (3), and Kennedy v. Lee (4). proved.
But they are not decisive, as Shackle v. Pearson v. Pearson (54 Law J. Rep. Baker (2) was only in the form of Chanc. 32; Law Rep. 27 Ch. D. 145) remedy whether by injunction or damages; overruled.
(1) 41 Law J. Rep. Chanc. 427; Law Rep. The sole question raised in this appeal
13 Eq. 322.
(2) 14 Ves. 468. was, in the words of Lord Macnaghten, (3) 17 Ves. 335. whether a person who has sold the good- (4) 3 Mer. 452.