NOTES OF RECENT CASES to prevent the unauthorized use of his name by another as a part of its corporate title, or, in con nection with its business or advertisements, his picture and his pretended certificate endorsing a remedy which such other is engaged in manu facturing, compounded according to the formula devised by Mr. Edison, though he is not a business competitor. The court notes that in two English cases, Clark v. Freeman, 11 Beav. 112, and Dockrell v. Douglas, 78 L. T. Rep. 848, injunctions were refused to restrain the unauthorized use of com plainant's name or recommendation, on the ground that complainant was not a business competitor qt defendant, but the court observes that the Clark case is virtually disapproved in Maxwell v. Hogg, L. R. 2 Ch. 307, and in In re Rivere's TradeMark, 26 Ch. Div. 48. Furthermore, the com plainant's contention in this case is supported by the leading case of Routh v. Webster, 10 Beav. 561. There the provisional directors of a joint stock company had, without plaintiff's authority, published a prospectus stating that he was a trustee. Lord Langdale granted an injunction on the ground that the company was representing the plaintiff as responsible in their speculations in a way calculated to involve him in all sorts of liabilities. As a late English case entirely sup porting this holding, the Vice-Chancellor cites Walter v. Ashton (1902) 2 Ch. 282. The court further reviews Roberson v. Rochester Folding Box Co., 171 N. Y. 538, 64 N. E. 442, 59 L. R. A. 478, 89 Am. St. Rep. 828, wherein the Court of Appeals, by a bare majority, overruled the decision of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, and held that a young lady was not entitled to an injunction to restrain a flour company from putting her likeness upon prints advertising its flour. This case, the Vice-Chancellor says, can not be sustained on principle, and has been dis approved by the Supreme Court of Georgia in Pavesich v. New England Life Insurance Co., 122 Ga. 190, 50 S. E. 68, 69 L. R. A. 101. 106 Am. St. Rep. 104, and by the New Jersey Court of Appeals in Vandcrbilt v. Mitchell, 67 Atl. 97, 103. The Vandcrbilt case was recently reported in these columns and it is on authority of the same that the Vice-Chancellor grants Mr. Edison the relief demanded. The result in this case is plainly sound. Inter esting questions of theory are raised by this type of wrong,— questions as to its place in the system of torts. The opinion of Stevens, V. C, examines the "privacy" cases as though they were germane. We
683
believe, however, that they form a separate species. So, too, do the libel cases and the trade-name cases. Of the few precedents of the precise class in question, the opinion makes a full collection; the only one omitted appears to be the the celebrated application of Lord Byron to restrain the publication of spurious poems under his name. (Byron v. Johnston, 2 Mer. 29). J. H. W. TORTS. (Strikes — Picketing.) S. C. N. Y., Sp. Term. — The right of an employer to enjoin picketing by members of a labor union, is upheld in New York Central Iron Works Co. v. Brennan, 105 N. Y. S. 865. It was urged by counsel for the union that there is no authority in New York to enjoin the members of the union from picketing, but the court says: " If there is no law in this state to authorize a court to interfere and prevent people through such conspiracy and combinations from interfering with a party who wishes to conduct his business in a lawful way, then it is high time there was such authority, and this appears to be a good case in which to follow the numerous authorities of other states, which have uniformly held that injunctions similar to the one sought to be dissolved here can be issued, upheld and enforced." In re Debs, 158 U. S. 564, 15 SupCt. 900, 39 L. Ed. 1092; Casey v. Cincinnati, etc., 45 Fed. 135, 12 L. R. A. 193; Geo. Jonas Glass Co. v. Glass Bottle Blowers' Ass'n, 66 Atl. 953. In the case at Bar the evidence pointed unmis takably to the fact that the purpose of the labor union was not by peaceful persuasion to endeavor to prevent men from entering the employment of the plaintiff. On the other hand, it appeared that the union took the course it did, and used the means complained of, to compel the employer to accede to its demands or else destroy the employer's business. In doing so, the court maintains, the strikers exceeded their rights under the decisions of New York, citing Coons i>. Chrystie, 24 Misc. Rep. 296, 53 N. Y. Supp. 668; Matthews v. Shankland, 25 Misc. Rep. 604, 56 N. Y. Supp. 123; Davis v. Engineers, etc., 28 App. Div. 396, 51 N. Y. Supp. 180; Sun Printing Association v. Delaney, 48 App. Div. 623, 62 N. Y. Supp. 750; Davis j;. Zimmerman, 91 Hun. 489, 36 N. Y. Supp. 303. Such actions, the court held, it had abundant authority, under the decisions in its immediate localitv, to restrain by injunct'on. As a case in point the court cites Davis Machine Co. v. Robinson, 41 Misc. Rep. 329, 84 N. Y. Supp. 837. TORTS,
(see Master and Servant.)
