The San Francisco call., 1897-07-08
uOLAu'S Shoes
STIR A FEUD
Some Brotherly EXAMINATIONS
and Recrimina-
tiOns.
Bitter Contest Over the Owner
ship of Established
Trade-Name.
Judge seawell Decides That W. H
Nolan May Not Use the Sign
" Nolan Brothers"

Judge Seawell of the Superior Court
handed down an opinion in the case of
Nolan Bros. Shoe Company against w II.
Nolan, wherein The plaintiff sought TO re-
strain the defendant from using the trade
name of Nolan Brothers" on his busi-
ness sign. 1t is a family row, and when
a family row gets into court it is always
bitterly contested.
In the complaint it is alleged that w.
H. Nolan has unIawfully and with intent
10 deceive the public and to take away
customers from the plaintiff adopted the
trade name Nolan Brothers." displaying
the same in large letters on the Market
street sign, while above the said trade
name in small letters appears the legend
"W. H. Nolan & Co., successors to-"
Several affidavits were filed on behalf of
W. H. Nolan. Speaking for himself the
defendant swears that he did not use the
trade name 10 deceive, but says it has
been used by him lor several years be-
cause it represents the truth; that he was
formerly in partnership with his brother
J. Z. Nolan, in the shoe business that he
bought out the interests of his brother in
1898 ever since which he has carried on
business as wv H. Nolan & Co., success
sors to Nolan Bros
Both sides lay great stress on the fact
that by extensive newspa per advertising
they have created a large value for the
trade name claimed by them in carrying
on their business.
An interesting disclosure is made
by the defendant that the term life saw
ing snoe" is OF no particular Importance,
as it is not a trademark and that it may be
applied to any welted shoe. A counter
charge of intent 10 defraud is made
against the plaintiff company, it being
said that their firm name was form rly
p +. Nolan Il Sons.
Judge Seawell in his opinion reviews the
history OF the Nolan famiiy's shoe trade.
He says that it appears that in 1873 J. c.
Nolan and P. F. Nolan formed "a partner
ship for the retail shoe business under the
firm name OF Nolan Brothers, which con-
tinued until 1884, when ]. c. transferred
to 2. f. all IlIs interest in the business,
trade, name and good will; that in 1877
the business concern known as Nolan
Brothers removed to 73S and 740 Market
street, and in 1881 TO 8l2 and Si4 Market,
where they and their successors have car
ried on business ever since; that in 1884 p.
f. Nolan after the dissolution of his part
nership with ]. c. Nolan formed another
partnership with his sons unuer the firm
name of P. F. Nolan & Sons, which firm
was subsequently incorl GRATED as the
Nolan Brothers Shoe Company and has
carried on said business ever since.
In the courts opinion P. F. Nolan &
Sons did not lose their right to the use OF
the trade name Nolan Bros, but were
entitled to use it either alone or jointly
with any other firm name or corporate
title that they wished.
1t is found that the firm of Nolan Bros
composed of w. d. Nolan and J. {.
Nolan, which was formed in 1885 and
which was dissolved in 1898 by J. Z. sell
ing his interest to W. H., with the excep-
ton OF the good will, carried on a whole
sale boot and shoe business a: 10 and y
Sutter street, but had nothing to do with
retail business. 1t is upon this point
that Judge Seawell bases his decision
which grants an injunction to the plain
tiff on the filing OF $4,000 bond. lhe
name Nolan Bros the court decides,
does not belong to W. H. Nolan for the
purpose OF engaging in The retail business,
and the use OF that trade name, even with
the explanatory words in small letters,
may not be permitted. So w. H. Nolan
must change his sign, unless he can Sc
cure from the Supreme Court reversal of
IDdOe SeaWell'S decision.