THE

LAW JOURNAL REPORTS

FOR

THE YEAR 1896.

CASES

IN

The House of Lords and in the Priby Council,

IN

The Court of Appeal and the Court for Crown Cases Reserved.

AND IN

THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

VIZ,

Chancery; Queen's Bench; and Probate, Divorce, and

Admiralty Divisions.

EDITOR :

JOHN MEWS.

SUB-EDITORS :

W. E. GORDON AND A. J. SPENCER.

CHANCERY DIVISION, VOL. LXT.

( CONTENT

WITH LAW REP. [1896] 1 CH. ; [1896) 2 CH. ; AND LAW REF. (1896] A. (.]

LONDON:
STEVENS AND SONS, LIMITED, 119 AND 120 CHANCERY LANE,

Law Publishers and Booksellers.

THE

LAW JOURNAL REPORTS

FOR

THE YEAR 1896

in the House of Lords

(ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL IN ACTIONS

IN THE CHANCERY DIVISIOM),

REPORTED BY

JAMES EYRE THOMPSON,

BARRISTER-AT-LAW;

IN THE

Court of Appeal

(ON APPEAL FROM THE CHANCERY DIVISIOM),

REPORTED BY

AUBREY JOHN SPENCER, AMYAND JOHN HALL, and

HENRY CHARLES ROPER,

BARRISTERS-AT-LAW;

AND. IN THE

Chancery Division

ОР

THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE,

REPORTED BY

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
MR. JUSTICE KEKEWICH A. CORDERY and G. MACAN
MR. JUSTICE ROMER

F. GOULD
COMPANY (WINDING-UP) CASES

W. I. COOK
BARRISTERS-AT-LAW.

EDITOR :
JOHN MEWS.

SUB-EDITORS :
W. E. GORDON and A. J. SPENCER.

{

[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.

VOL. 65.-CHANC.

B