Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 10.djvu/306

280 HARVARD LAW REVIEW. given to plaintiff,^ against statements as to former employment made in such a way as to produce deception,^ against a false rep- resentation that defendant was plaintiff's agent,^ against a false representation that plaintiff was defendant's agent,^ against a false representation as to date of establishing a business, calculated to represent a new business as the same business as an old established and still existing business,^ and against a representation by a man- ufacturer that his goods are the original " at the suit of the first manufacturer of the goods.^ It is also held to be immaterial that only careless or ignorant persons can be deceived by the acts com- plained of if fraud on defendant's part be found J Good Will. The assets of a going business consist of the land which it may own, its leases, stock in trade, credits, and, lastly, an intangible something called Good Will. The learned reader will doubtless judicially notice the fact that this good will may well be, and very often is in fact, the principal asset of the business, an obvious example being a successful news- paper or patent medicine business. That good will is a thing of value, and a subject of property, was very early recognized,^ and it is now well settled. " The good will of a trade is a subject of value and price. It may be sold, bequeathed, or become assets in the hands of the personal representative of the trader." Per Tindal, C. J., in Hitchcock v. Coker.^ Included in and making up the good will, and passing with it upon a sale of the business, is the business name,^^ the trade marks,^^ the trade names,^^ ^^d the trade secrets ^^ of the business ; 1 Franks v. Weaver, lo Beav. 297. 2 Scott V. Scott, 16 L. T. N. s. 143. ^ Howe V. McKernan, 30 Beav. 547. 4 Coleman v. Flavel, 40 Fed. Rep. 854 6 Fullwood V. Fullwood, 9 Ch. D. 176. ^ Cox V. Chandler, L. R. 11 Eq. 446; Lazenby v. White, 41 L. J. Ch. 354. ■^ Von Mumm v. Frash, 56 Fed. Rep. 830 ; Enoch Morgan's Sons v. Wendover, 43 Fed. Rep. 420; Brooklyn White Lead Co. z/. Masury, 25 Barb. 416; Hennessyz^. White, 6 W. W. & A'B. Eq. 216; Wolfe v. Hart, 4 Vict. L. R. Eq. 134. ' ^ Giblett V. Read, 9 Mod. 459. 9 6 Ad. & E. 438. 10 Levy V. Walker, 10 Ch. D. 436. 11 Shipwright v. Clements, 19 W. R. 599. i"2 Banks v. Gibson, 34 Beav. 566. 18 James v. James, L. R. 13 Eq. 421.