The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1895-09-20
IMPORTANT OPINIONS.
Threc Interesting Cases Decided by the
Appellate Division, Supreme Court.

In the case OF Edward f, Cady va.
Charles Z. Schultz, the following facts
are reclted by Justice Douglass: "The
complainant Is engaged in the practice of
that purpose in Providence, in this State:
IN baltimore, Nd ; and in Washington,
In the District of COLUMBIA, and employ
ing assistants to attend to patients at
these places. In the prosecution of this
business for four years he has used as a
trane name the words United States Den
| tai Association, and has displayed this
name or abbreviations of il upon signs
| amxed TO his place of business in Proyi-
uence ana in advertisements and cards
widely distributed through Providence,
Pawtucket ana Attleboro, so that the
business OF which ne is proprietor has
become known in the city of Providence
and the adjacent city of Pawtucket by
that name.
1.-The defendant, who Is a dentist. former
~ had an office inProvidence, near the COM
plainant's rooms, and about Decem Der 1,
dos4' saemoved TO Pawtucket and opened
an once there, and displayed upon his
WINDOWS and upon the walls of the
building signs In close imitation in size.
shape and color OF those used by the com.
plalnant. We have no doubt from the
evloence that these limitations were in
tentlonai. Indeed, this is not denied and
we can conceive OF no motive for the use
Oh similar signs except to the advantage
OF the advertisements OF the complaint
ants ana 10 induce customers to pa tronize
the defendant The complainant pre-
sents instances where customers were ac-
tually misled by them and the defendant
says that people have come into his Office
supposlng II to be controlled by the United
states Dental Association, though he as
serts that in all cases he has undeceived
them.'
The opinion states that the complainant
haf ha .l
upon the plaintiff Signs, etc., is an IL |
iegal use OF those letters, ana also that he |
Is the inve ntor of the phrase "Scientific |
dentistry at moderate prices, and that |
the defendant cannot lawfully display |
this legend on his signs, and generally |
ne asks that the defendant may be en- |
joined from using similar signs to those
he uses. "We are Of the opinion,n JUS
tlce Douglass continues, 'that the COM
piainant can have no property In the
shape, SIZE color or arrangement of signs
without regard TO the letters which they
Dear, nor can he claim any exclusive use
OF the words scientific dentistry. And in
regard TO the use OF the letters u. s. upon
the windows OF the defendants Office the |
opinion states that "there Is plain at
tempt to convey the idea that the busi-
business and should be re-
strained. In the matter OF exclusive |
right on the part OF the complainant. to |
use the words U. =. in his business. after
lengthy review OF the authorities, the
,ourt is OF the opinion that the complain
INT Is entitled TO an injunction restrain
ng the use by the defendant OF the words
y. ). Dental Rooms or the letters u. s.
ipon his signs or windows and all words,
etters and symbols tending to indicate
hat his business is conducted or managed |
~ the plaintiff" I"
Catherine II. Ryder vs.. James J. Ryder,
I al. In an opinion by Chief Justice
iatteson a decree is allowed entered for |
he reformation OF the mortgage accord
ng TO the prayer OF the bill.
Silas u. Tefft, ct al, vs.. Providence
Washington Insurance Company. In an
pinion by the chief justice the following
ecislon Is made: 1--WE are OF the opin-
on thar the ruling directing the verdict
'as erroneous, and we therefore grant |
he petition and remit the case 10 the
ommon pleas division for a new trial
The jurors In the common pleas divis-
,n OF the supreme Court whose term OF
srvice expires with the first week OF tho
'rm were paid of today, there being no |
'ials for tomorrow. The only case on
he docket today was that OF Alfred
ierce vs. A. Burton Bullock, aud conn
] announced that il would DO settled
ithout a trial.
The case OF William Howard Paine vs.
dwin II. Kent, In which a Jury trial has
zen waived Will be heard by Judge
ouglass tomorrow.