The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1904-10-19
HACKFELD WINS
LITTLE LOCKER" CASE

@s Tx VOON6ss Q00l
Judge Gear yesterday fled decision
in the case of Isidor. Rubenstein, do
ing business as I. Fsubenstein & Co.,
VS.. H. Hackfeld & Co, Ltd, bill for in
junction in re the right to the exclusive
right in the use of the brand of to-
bacco known as the Little Joker to-
bacco, finding for the defendant on the
ground that the plaintiff has made out
iiminary injunction dissolved. Hyman
Bros, the predecessors of Rubenstein
& Co, originally had the right to the
use of the said brand in this Terri
tory. and by extensively advertising it
had made it a lucrative business. When
the firm changed hands, Hackfeld &
Co. secured possession of the brand
The court ta.tas that the American To-
bacco Co. lave no rights to Hyman
Bros. which they could assign to their
successor, Rubenstein & Co.
The decision in part is as follows:
This is a case of novel impression.
Diligent research has not enabled the
Court to find any authority directly in
point SO far as the facts of this case
are concerned. The complaint upon
which preliminary injunction was
granted alleges that the firm of Hyn1an
Brothers. the predecessor in interest of
the plaintiff, during the year 1892 ac-
i-ad Il
of tobacco known as the Little Joker
tobacco, land acquired the exclusive
right in said brand. and in the vending
thereof, in and for, Hawaii, from the
manufacturer thereof; and that since
1892 have sold Little Joker in their own
right.
The complaint further alleges that
since 1892 and up to December LIST, 1908.
the firm of Hyman Brothers consisted
of H. w. Hyman, Michael Hyman,
Morris Hyman, j. Hyman and the
plaintiff, 1. Rubenstein; that on or
about Dec. LIST, 1903, "the aforesaid part
nership transferred unto complainant
the entire business.
The complaint further alleges that
the defendant firm, Hackfeld & Co,
has recently and is now unlawfully
and without permission of your orator,
selling and offering for sale, in Homo
lulu and elsewhere within said Terri
tory said brand of tobacco, and threat
ems to continue to do So unless en-
joined from so doing.
The defendant has moved to dissolve
the injunction, granted as preliminary
injunction, upon several grounds stated
in the motion.
Upon the hearing of the motion to
dissolve the plaintiff was examined as
a witness by the defendant, and he
produced a letter which the plaintiff
stated was the only written document
he 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.
Messrs. Hyman Bros:-Referring to
the 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, CIV
ing you sole control of same for the
Hawaiian~ Islands, SO long as you ham
die them to the entire satisfaction of
tbs company.
The letter is signed by the American
Tobacco Company.
The first question which naturally
presents itself is as to 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 Hyman
Bros. were it now in existence, might
complain of the act of the American
Tobacco Company in giving the agency
of the tobacco to the defendant. on the
ground that the American Tobacco
Company could not arbitrarily change
the agency unless there existed rea-
sonable grounds for dissatisfaction, can
a purchaser of their business, after
their dissolution of the partnership. in
sist that he should be accorded the
same right?
1t seems to me that the letter of the
American Tobacco Company gave Fly
man Brothers no rights which they
could assign to their successor. 1t gives
to Hyman Brothers the control of the
brand of tobacco in question, without
any words showing an intent to extend
the right to an assignee. The contract
seems to me to be one which involves
a relation of personal confidence such
as must have been intended to be ex-
ercised only by Messrs. Lyman Broth
ers Not only is this true, but 1T Is
also apparent that even Hyman Broth
ers were at liberty at any time to ter
inmate their relations with the Ameri-
can Tobacco Company, whenever they
wished to do so.
The last story of all-embracing Nor