New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1869-10-22
THE COURTS.
NOTION 70 DISSOLVE INJUNCTION.

SUPREME COURT CHAMBERs-Oct0ber Term,
1862 John C. Batcheer, Lyman Batcheler,
Justus Batoheler and John Scribner, plaintiffs vs.
The Batcheler Manufacturing Company Defendants
Ira Shafer for motion; I. X. Strong opposeu-"' W.
Barnard, J.-This Is motion to dissolve temporary
Injunction The facts they appear before me may DO
briefly stated follows: Lyman Batclleer, ST. now
deceased for carried on the business OF max
ing forks spades &c. at Wningford, VT; that as soon
as his oldest son. Isaac G. Batoheer. attained his ma
jOrity, the old gentleman took him into copartnershlp
as The other sons were also subsequently, Tor OF
thenJ taken into the concern. when the firm was
known as l.. Batcheer Sons" subsequently the frm
gnaton has been employed by the plaintiffs hitherto
although John scribner, oneAoI the PlaintilS' Is
the son-in.law, only of Lyman. senior. In 1871 the
destruction Of their buildings by fire, and
The rlants papers ID reply the efendans'
papers state that Isaac retired from the rn receiving
sum and that the sasd I oe goOa
tended that Isaac In any way or manner c0yenanted or
agreed not TO envase 10 tho Isaac SSnen
he entered into the employ, OF the plain nf
the project of the defendants' company discussed
From the facts before am constrained to arrive at
Intention to organize the Batcheler Manufacturing Com
pany. but they encouraged 1t, and advised Isaac
TO become member OF the same, and 10 connect his
name Herewith. aud TO charge a good round sum
for the Of his name In the Company Isaac and his
wife both make aldavits Of the most positive character
In this respect and plaintiffs admit that they advised
him charge $4,000 In greenbaeks, and they say that
that had been paid Isaac they would have submitted
TO the injury which they claim they sustaining
without murmur. The Company was organized Isaac
received In full paid stock he Is one OF the Trustees
named the Articles of Incorporation; is stakeholder
aud Director Of the Company. and has In good faith
poyed by the defendants their superintendent aid s
10 have the principal charge OF the defendants manue
turing business The defendants have already expended
preparing for the manufacture OF the Inn
PIGMENTS before mentioned The PLAINTIFF obtained the
temporary Injunction claiming that they have sustained
In the deiendans aud say that their customers will
be likely to send orders to the defendants, and their bust
ness into confusion Both sides agree that Batch
eler Sons manufacture superior fork and implement
country but In Europe Isaac. the member OF the de-
fendants company Is fifty years OF age aud taught
his brothers. In connection With his father the art which
they now seek to mOuopOlize and unquesOuby he pos
great Skill am not aware Of any rule OF law or
shall never engage In the @aDacare Of tho tools aud
Implements in the manufacture of which he has spent
thein he may call them the Batcheer forks and II no
may manufacture them Individually ne can do
nershlp, the member OF Incorporated company
He proposes, member OF the defendants company,
TO manufacture the same Kind OF goods which his skill
and experience 1T him 10 furnish the markets Of the
world aud II this work an injury to tho plaintiffs 1t Is
an injury for which they have remedy. His name IL
Bacheler, his skill has rendered tho plaintiffs forks
measurably superior article; and unless no Is unde,
exercise his skill he has the right 10 employ both
20 promote his interests and the interests OF those With
whom he IA associated This expressly held In Faber
Faber In this court where Sutherland, j., said III
s unfortunate for the plaintiff that he and the defendant
j. H. Faber both manufacturers OF lead pencisJl
the place In Germany and that both have the
same name as Faber. for It is easy 20 SEQ that
this circumstance may have been and may be
an injury To the plaintiff: but the defendant
Faber has a right to put stamp his own name In gold,
gilt. other letters his pencils and the bands,
wrappers In which they are put mp as described
in the complaint, and any injury which the plaintiff has
suffered may sufer by such use 81 the defend
ant Faber's name merely. must be viewed as
an Injury without remedy" And there Is
nothing I'm tho numerous authorities cited
10y the plaintiffs initiate against this doctrine.
II the defendants had sought out obscure by
the OF Blcheer. who had no skill or reputation as
the manufacturer OF these implements, and given him
tho place their Company that they have given
Isaac with the view and design Of inducing the public
10 believe that he Of the plaintiffs or possessed
the skill OF the plaintiff tho question might be very diff
fcrcut from the before the Court As II s nnd
that the plaintiffs knew OF the intended organization OF
this Company they knew that II was contemplated TO
make Isaac member Of 10, and TO connect his name
with Il that they advised him 10 become member Of It
for adequate consideration which he has received;
that he has honestly and fairly dened his name. his
skill 1pericuce with the fortunes OF the defendants,
and the plaintiffs aud the defendants must be permitted,
without tho Interference az Court OF Equity, to nght
their battles business rivals the markets OF the
world. Motion granted, with costs.