Slike strani
PDF
ePub

THE

LAW JOURNAL REPORTS

FOR

[ocr errors]

THE YEAR 1896.

CASES

IN

The House of Lords and in the Privy 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. LXV.

[ CONTEMPORARY WITH LAW REP. [1896] 1 CH.; [1896] 2 CH.; AND LAW REP. [1896] A. C.]

LONDON:

STEVENS AND SONS, LIMITED, 119 AND 120 CHANCERY LANE,
Law Publishers and Booksellers.

1896.

LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR

[merged small][ocr errors]

LAW JOURNAL REPORTS

THE

In the House of Lords

(ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL IN ACTIONS

IN THE CHANCERY DIVISION),

MR. JUSTICE CHITTY
MR. JUSTICE NORTH
MR. JUSTICE STIRLING
MR. JUSTICE KEKEWICH
MR. JUSTICE ROMER

FOR

REPORTED BY

JAMES EYRE THOMPSON,

THE YEAR 1896

IN THE

Court of Appeal

(ON APPEAL FROM THE CHANCERY DIVISION),

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

AUBREY JOHN SPENCER, AMYAND
HENRY CHARLES ROPER,
BARRISTERS-AT-LAW;

AND-IN
IN THE

Chancery Division

[ocr errors]

BARRISTER-AT-LAW;

REPORTED BY

THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE,

OF

REPORTED BY

R. B. SCHOMBERG and H. F. AMEDROZ

J. E. HORNE and G. R. ALSTON

W. A. G. WOODS and ARTHUR LAWRENCE
A. CORDERY and G. MACAN

F. GOULD

COMPANY (WINDING-UP) CASES

JOHN HALL, and

BARRISTERS-AT-LAW.

EDITOR:

W. I. COOK

JOHN MEWS.

SUB-EDITORS :

W. E. GORDON and A. J. SPENCER.

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE.

CASES ARGUED AND DETERMINED

The

Chancery Division

AND DIVISIONAL COURTS

OF

THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE,

AND ON APPEAL THEREFROM TO

THE COURT OF APPEAL AND HOUSE OF LORDS.
MICHAELMAS 1895 TO MICHAELMAS 1896.
59 Victoriæ.

[IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS.]

ANNA TREGO AND W. W.

June 25, 27, 28.

SMITH (appellants) v. Dec. 5. G. S. HUNT (respondent). Partnership-Right of Partner to take Extracts from Books of Firm-Solicitation of Customers of Old Firm by Retiring Partner-Injunction.

A partner who has no share in the goodwill of the business is not entitled during the partnership to extract from the books of the firm the names and addresses of customers for the purpose of soliciting such customers on his own behalf after the termination of the partnership.

Decision of the COURT OF APPEAL (64 Law J. Rep. Chanc. 392; Law Rep. [1895] 1 Ch. 462) reversed.

IN

Labouchere v. Dawson (41 Law J. Rep. Chanc. 427; Law Rep. 13 Eq. 322) approved.

Pearson v. Pearson (54 Law J. Rep. Chanc. 32; Law Rep. 27 Ch. D. 145)

overruled.

The sole question raised in this appeal was, in the words of Lord Macnaghten, whether a person who has sold the goodVOL. 65.-CHANC.

[blocks in formation]

June 25, 27, 28.-Graham Hastings, Q.C., and H. H. Cozens-Hardy, Q.C. (9. Leigh Clare with them), for the appellants. A man cannot derogate from his own grant, or as Lord Romilly, M.R., said in Labouchere v. Dawson (1), depreciate what he has sold. The earliest decisions on the subject are those of Lord Eldon in Shackle v. Baker (2), Cruttwell v. Lye (3), and Kennedy v. Lee (4). But they are not decisive, as Shackle v. Baker (2) was only in the form of remedy whether by injunction or damages;

(1) 41 Law J. Rep. Chanc. 427; Law Rep. 13 Eq. 322.

(2) 14 Ves. 468.

(3) 17 Ves. 335.
(4) 3 Mer. 452.

B

« PrejšnjaNaprej »