The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1901-06-01


ai ID5I 6dbt Of the payment of all of the
asreenent further provided for the fu-
lure tGAluct OF the business under pow
er OF attorney, for the benefit of the par
ties of the third part and ali other cred
itors of the firm, and the parties of the
tnlro part were also authorized to sell
ana dispose Of the business if it should
lan 70 pay their claims in the manner
steapulateo, and any balance remaining
after payment Of the firms Indebtedness
0nd part.
thereafter, in an action commenced by
the parties of the third part to secure
possession and sale of the business and
properly, receiver was appointed, who,
thereof - $50
Held. In an action against such re-
celVer py creditor of the firm who was
not party to the agreement, and in
ignorance or tit and of the transfer of
the property, that the agreement, upon
It's face, was not fraudulent as to the
efeoltors not a party to 1t. Order af-
nFIleo Lewis, j.
In the matter of the estate of James ].
Little, deceased, Robert Little. propo-
J nenI respondent; vs.. James J. Little, Is
aDella Little, William H. Little AMI
lants. rY's
>. In an action brought to test the valid
1ty of a will upon the ground that the
same had been executed by the testator
Wnen OF unsound mind and under undue
influence exerted over him by the prin-
cIpal deVisee. % -
Held, that the findings of the court are
supported by the evidence, to the effect
that the testator was of sound mind and
that ne improper influence was exerted-
manner he did, and that the will was
properly executed. Order affirmed,
Lewis. ].
7
corporation. appellant, VS.. j. H. Sands
8. G. Sands and Smith McHugh, do
ing business as partners under the firm
name and title Of DR.. Wards Medical
Company respondents
l. A name, device or symbol cannot be
adopted as a tradesmark unless it ex-
presses and identifies either. the origin Or
ownership OF the article to which it re-
2. Words merely descriptive of the
character, quality or composition of an
mark. >lt
3. The exclusive right to a name, title
or device as a trade mark is founded
upon rr priority Of apIR2Topriati9n
Imminent cannot be utilized as a trade
mark, as they are merely descriptive of
ticle. -,
3. medical preparation may be used
and manufactured by anyone who law
fully and in good faith acquires knowl-
eoge or It's composition, and such person
may publish the fact that the product Is
manufactured in accordance with the
original formula, and the fact that such
preparation has become popularity known
py tne name OF certain person gives
no exclusive right to anyone to appEo-
pirate the name as trade mark. Fol-
lowing Watkins VS.. Landon ct al 81
MINI. $780,
6. Evidence examined and held to sup
port the finding of the court that de-
PENDANT, j. H. Sands Sr.. came lawfully
and IN good faith into possession of
labels adapted to its advertisement and
sale, and that the defendant, J. H. Sands
Jr., lawfully and in good faith acquired
knoWledge of such formula and labels.
II. Held further, that the evidence sup
ports the findings of the court to the eff
feet that defendant. J. H Sands Sr., law
fully used the words "Dr. Wards" in
connection with the manufacture, adver-
tlsement and sale of such formula, prior
TO the time the same were used by plain
tins grantor. j. r. Watkins, and that at
the commencement of this action J. n. !
Sands Jr. was lawfully entitled to use
such name in connection with the manu-
facture, advertisement and sale of the
formula Order affirmed. Lewis, ].
James ]. Little, Henry H. Little ct al,
appellants, vs.. Robert Little, Ella Lit
tie, his wife, Harry Vroman, Eliza
Smout ct al, respondents.
In an action to set aside conyeyances
upon the ground that the same were
without consideration, evidence exam
med, and neld that the findings of the
court to the effect that the deeds were
valid and upon sufficient consideration
were supported by the evidence. Order,
affirmed Lewis. J.
G. A. Benson, respondent vs. Port Huron
Engine and Thresher Company, appel
liant. s ss~qrs
In an action by purchaser to recover
damages for a breach of warranty in
the sale of a coal-burning engine with a
straw burning attachment. It appeared
that the engine as a coal-burner was a
complete machine, irrespective of the
straw-burner. The measure Of damages
was the difference in value, for any pur-
pose, between the engine delivered and
the combination sold, mad it been as war
ranted.
Held, that It was error to reject testi
mony tending to show the value of the
engine independently Of the straw-burn
ing attachment. Order reversed
Lewis, J.