Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1904-10-18
nACKFELD WINS
Continued from Page W

tory said brand of tobacco, and
threatens TO continue to do so, unless
enioined from so doing.
The defendant has moved to dis.
solve the injunction, granted as a pre-.
liminary injunction, upon several
grounds stated in the motion.
Upon the hearing OF the motion to
dissolve the plaintiff was examined as
o witness by the defendant, and he
produced letter which the plaintiff
stated was the only written document
be had any positive knowledge of, CIV
ing his predecessor the alleged exclu.
sive right set out in the bill. The let.
ter Is from the american Tobacco
Company" whom the evidence shows
is the manufacturer" referred to in
the complaint. The letter Is In part as
follows:
New York, Aug. 10th, 1900.
Mcssrs. Hyman Bros: Referring to
tho conversation had with your Mr..
Hyman relative TO the Honolulu terri
tory, would say that It has been de.
cided to leave the following brands in
your hands under conditions noted.
giving you sole control OF same for the
Hawaiian Islands, so long as you han.
die them to the entire satisfaction Of
this company.
The letter is signed b. the American
Tobacco Company.
The first question which naturally
presents itself IL 40 10 the right of the
plaintiff to claim the exclusive right"
TO sell and control the Little Joker
tobacco in this Territory.
While perhaps the firm of Lyman
Bros, were IL now In existence, might
complain of the act of the American
Tobacco Company in giving the
agency Of the tobacco to the defend
ant, on the ground that the American
Tobacco Company could not arbitrar
| lily change the agency unless there
existed reasonable grounds for dissat
isfaction, can q purchaser of theil
business. after their dissolution of tn,
partnership, insist that he should b,
accorded the same right2
II seems to me that the letter Of thu
American Tobacco Company gave Hy
man Brothers no rights which the.
could assign 10 their successor. I
gives to HYMN Brothers the contro
Of the brand Of tobacco in question
without any words showing en- inten
to extend the right to an assignee
The contract seems to me TO be on'
which involves relation OF persona
confidence such as must have been in
tended to be exercised only by Messrs
LYMAN Brothers. Not only is thi
true, but II is also apparent that evei
Hyman Brothers were at liberty n
any time to terminate their relation
with the American Tobacco Company
whenever they wished to do so.
II may be that the plaintiff in thi
action has paid the former partnershi
for something which was not deli,
cred. but this gives him no right to a
injunction as against the defendant 4
this case.
| The case Is somewhat similar to tn
case Of Rice vs.. Angel. In that cas-
/. one bought for $3.50. a half interest 4
! the business Of one engaged In tn
} insurance business and who repre-
scented Ave or six companies as thei
agent. The business was wort
10000, but the court held that 9Th
agencies which the partnership had 81
cured were determinable at the will {
the principals and there could be n
/. property in them. They actually ceS
ed upon dissolution OF the firm" III
, plaintiff In that case therefore wa
/, awarded nothing.
i find that the plaintiff has made o,
no case, and the preliminary injun
ton should be dissolved, and II Is 6
ordered.