The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-08-07
ICE TRUST LOSES A SURF.
Enjoined Against Using J. "
Schcer's Name on wagons.

Enjoined Against Using J. w.
schcer's Name on wagons.
| NEW YORK, Aug. s.-The American Ice
| Company sustained another defeat today
In the Supreme Court. when Justice G7e-
gerich, in Special Term Part /, continued
the preliminary Injunction. issued by JUS
tice Dugro. restraining II from doing bust
ness under the name of John w. Sckser.
Scneer. who was an independent ice deal
er, with one wagon and about 200 GUS
toners, sold his ice business to the Ameri-
can Ice Company on April 4. 1900 for $780,
ne assertec that at the time Of the sale
ne understood that his business was to be
absorbed by the American Ice Company.
that John w. Scheer was to pass out Of
| existence as an ice dealer. and that he was
to become a driver foTT the American Ice
| Company. Scheer did enter the service
OF the American Ice Company. and said
that he was greatly surprised few days
after he had sold his business to see some
twenty new ice wagons on which was
| painted in large letters John w. Scheer.
| Dealer in Hygeia Ice" He said that the
American Ice Company opened an Office
in the name OF John W. Scheer, and sent
/ ouI dTbc uumDer OF cdrdS announcing
1 that John w Scheer was still in the les
business and was ready to furnish all buy
| ers with ice
| In his decision, which sustained Scheer's
contention that no one but himself had the
| right to use his name, Justice Giegerich
| said.
This Is an application to continue an in
junction pendente lite restraining the de-
PENDANT from doing business under the
4 S1af~x
the complaint and moving affidavit are
follows: The plaintiff was, prior to April
4. 1900, engaged in the retail sale and de-
livery of ice, but on that date sold his
business, consisting OF one wagon, team.
and ice route to the defendant company.
1t is stated. and not denied, that there was
no provision in the contract Of sale that
the defendant should have the right to
use the plaintiffs name although there
was provision that the plaintiff should
not engage in the ice business in the State
OF New York for n period OF FIVE or ten
years without the defendants permission.
After making the purchase the defend
ant printed the plaintiffs tScheer's} name,
in large letters, on other wagons and also
issued a large number of cards bearing
the following inscription: John W. Scheer,
Dealer in Hygeia and Natural Ice. $50 West
Thirty-eighth Street. New York. Order3
and forms Of contracts were also printed
and correspondence was carried on in
plaintiffs name Checks to his order were
endorsed with his name and collected by
the defendant
1.-THE defendant resists the motion solely
on the ground that no right of property
belonging to the plaintiff has been injured.
and relies upon De Wick VS.. Dobson. and
other cases which have held that injune-
q tn f~afr, ft.a h
LEGATION OF libel, although some of the
elements Of damage enumerated in the
complaint are similar to those in libel
such. for instance as bringing the plain
tin's name into disrepute by making IL
appear that plaintiff acquiesces in such
fraudulent and wrongful scheme in fur
thera1ce of defendants monopoly The
cause OF action, however. is not libel but
is for unauthorized use of plaintiffs name"
The exclusive use OF ones own name.
except as against those having the same
name, is property right which has long
been recognized In judicial decisions, and
the fact that the plaintiff bound himself
not to engage in the ice business for 4
term of years did not, in the absence OF
an express agreement to that effect, entitle
the defendant to use his name in that busi-
ness 1t would seem to be proposition
hardly requiring argument that every
man is the custodian of his own reputa-
ton, and is entitled TO say who shall do
business and what business shall be done
under his name. If Ii were necessary,
however, to point out specific and sub
stantial injuries which the plaintiff is
exposed to- by reason of the unauthorized
acts complained of. 1t would not be diff
cult to do so. He is. for example, subject
to the cost and xexation of snits mat
might be brought against him by reason
of things that may happen in the business
carried on in his name So. too. h. might
suffer detriment in case he should engage
in future in some other line of business,
and seek to obtain his former patrons as
customers, whom he might then hrd
prejudiced against him by reason Of the
acts now being done in his name. With
out going further it is enough to say that
the injunction should be continued"
Justice Giegerich directed the American
Ice Company to pay SO, the costs Of tie
motion.