St. Paul daily globe., 1889-03-12
NOT A LEGAL TRADEMARK.
The Supreme Court Holds That the
Ciqarmakers' Union Label Is N. G..
TWO JUSTICES DISSENT.
An Important Ruling as to the Powers
of Guardians to Deed Prop
erty.

"Held not legal trade mark" This
laconic decision of the supreme court
will be looked upon with mingled feel
ings by members of the Cigarmakers'
Protective Union No. 9S. In other
words, it DEGREES that the symbol used
to indicate the cigars manufact-
ured by members of this union
is common property. This inn
portant decision arose out of the
suit of Cigarmakers' Protective Union
No. 9S, respondent, VS.. Daniel e. Con-
hahn ct al, appellants, and is filed by
Chief Justice Gilfillan.l His standpoint
is thus put: ''Whatever may be said
or thought of the conduct of the de-
PENDANTS in the matter of honesty and
good morals. i'll using the peculiar SYM
boi adopted 10y the plaintiff, and it reD-
resented TO indicate the goods manu-
factured by them. the case must be de-
cided on consideration of strict legal
right of the plaintiff in that symbol as a
point, the learned Judge states that cigar
makers throughout the United States
have joined themselves into local
unions. of which this plaintiff is one.
forming the Cigarmakers' International
union. They have devised and adopted
a certain symbal, which plaintiff claims
to be a legal trademark, for the eX-
elusive use and protection of the cigar
makers who are members and of those
manufacturers and others who employ
them. Any one seeing it on box of
cigars could not tell who of the many
thousands of individuals authorized to
use it had made the cigars in the box.
We might suppose any other association
of persons, church, the order of Free
Masons or Odd Fellows, agrees that it's
several members shall put par
ticular device Oh articles manufactured
by them for sale, so that the members
may eventually assist each other by
means of such device. The right to use
such device, being got merely by join
ing the association and not depending
at all on the person having earned a
reputation or good will for the manu-
facture of the particular article, could
not be regarded as lawful trademark.
Such case would not materially differ
from this. 1t is true the members of the
unions are all engaged in the same kind
of business; but they are not engaged
in business altogether. The business
and business interests of one are as dis
tlnct from those of another as
though they followed different kinds
of business" The syllabus rem
dered, which is. also concurred in by
Judges Dickinson and Collins, reads:
THE clgarmakerS' union, having
many thousands of members, adopted
or agreed upon certain symbol or de-
vice to be used by their several MEM
bers by placing it on boxes of
cigars made by such members, such de-
vice not indicating by what persons the
cigars are made, but only that they are
made by some memberS%of one of such
unions, the right to use the device be-
longing equally to each of all the mem
berS and continuing only while the per-
son remains a member. Held not a
legal trademark"
Judges Mitchell and Vanderburgh
dissent from this view of the case.
While he assents to the general rules
of law in regard to the rights OF prop
erty in trademarks and labels, Judge
Mitchell holds that members of union
should have the benefit of the superior
reputation of its products in the mar
ket resulting from their superior skill.
''The adoption of this label" he con-
cludes. "by the union may be a mere
device for boycotting those who employ
non-uniOn labor, but we cannot assume
this as against the allegations of the
complaint, which must be here taken as
true" By the decision of the majority
of the court the order of the lower
court is reversed.
There were three other decisions filed
in the supreme court. The order of the
trial court is affirmed in the appeal,
Louis +. Menage. respondent, VS.. Price
Jones, appellant. Guardians are affected
hr-f n "A IL
the syllabus furnished by Chief Justice
Gilfllan being: '.The probate court of a
county in this state liz which lies real eS-
tate Of ward residing out of this state
under guardianship by virtue of an ap-
polntment of a guardian i'll another
state is the probate court having juriS-
dictiOn' upon an application by the
guardian for license to sell such real
estate of a ward. There being real es-
tate of ward in a county, and the
record of the probate court Show
ing a petition by the guardian
from another state asking for
libease to sell the real estate and
notice and opportunity TO be heard, the
jurisdiction in the matter appears. On
such hearing it is for the probate court
to determine whether the guardian was
duly appointed in such other state, and
iiN SctipiiSti Nipll ollC law
of this state by filing an authenticated
copy of his appointment, and its de-
cision, except on appeal, is final.
Though guardians deed does not
refer to the proceedings in the probate
court, if it appear by the record of that
court and the deed that the sale and
deed were made pursuant to the license
it is sufficient. Such a deed in the
name of the guardian. in his official
capacity as grantor, is goOd.'
Paul Lavallee, administrator, appellant,
VS.. st. Paul, Minneapolis IL Manitoba
Railway Company, respondent.
The chief justice atfirms the order of
the lower court.
Syllabus-The laws making roilrOad
companies liable to an employe for in
juries caused by the negligence of CO.
employe apply only to those engaged
in operating the railroads, and so ex-
posed to peculiar dangers attending that
business.
In re Paul Mousseau, appellant.
against the estate of Charles Mousseau,
deceased. Judgment reversed,
MITCHELL, j.