The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1904-02-16
INJUNCTION
IN TRADING
STAMP CASE.

A decision was handed down today In
the circuit court OF the United States Tor
the district OF Rhode Island by Judge
Brown. on the trading stamp sase in
which the Sperry & Hutchinson co. was
the complainant and the Mechanics
Clothing CO. defendant
The petition was for preliminary IN
junction TO restrain the defendant from
issuing. selling or disposing OF certain
green trading stamps.
In his opinion Judge Brown commented
upon the nature of the business, the
contract entered into by both parties and
the duties involved.
Both parties agree that the property
I'm and title to said stamps remains with
the" company.
The advertising book, or the sub
scrfbers book" said the court. ISSUED TO
the public. does not inform the public or
the terms OF agreement between the COM
pany and the merchant; for. while In the
contract the company agrees to redeem
stamps when presented In book In lots OF
900 stamps In a book. II Is advertised TO
the public that every single trading
stamp Is redeenable, that various articles
can be procured for smaller number
than 900 stamps that certain articles. will
! be exchanged for 800 green trading stamps
or one filled book" and that other arti-
| cles will be exchanged for 1880 green
trading stamps or two filled books" The
! public is not informed that stamps are
are redeemable only when presented In
| books"
The court finds. upon proof. that the
title TO the stamps while In the hands OF
the merchant was only a limited one. and
that he acquires no right 10 dispose OF
them otherwise than according to con-
tract, and the merchant who should sell
| or dispose OF them not In the way pre-
scribed would Violate the contract with
| the company. There was evidence that
the defendants had in their possession
stamps which could only have been ao-
quired by the defendants from merchants
not authorized by the contract. Evidence
was produced showing that defendants
had solicited merchants under contract
ins M,sn stamps sn and have sold trading stamps
to such merchants.
The defendant knew the character OF
the contract, but sought TO induce mer.
chants TO break them, to the detriment
OF the complainant That the com
, plainant was belittled to an injunction
to restrain the defendants from such
unlawful Interference with IT'S contracts
seems 10 be established.
The complainants business would b,
; damaged in that there would be an i'm
| pairment of the value OF the stamps
thus lessening the willingness OF th'
merchant TO procure them from tn
complainant.
Q The defendants have already bee,
: guilty OF fraud upon the complainant. a
well as the merchants under contrac
with the complainant.
D Ii is contrary TO equity that after
= course OF fraudulent advertising TO tn
public the defendants now should b
$ permitted to reap the fruits OF thei
fraud
e The complainant clearly Is entitled I
: an injunction on the ground or unfai
q and fraudulent interference with its con
: tracts and with its products.
The rights OF contract should not b
@ used to attack the business OF the com
plainant. The defendants must suffer IN
: | usual consequences to wrongdoers WI
. have confused their own property wit
that OF others and must bear OF such q
J. lay az Is essential to the orderly ascer
s tainment OF the legal and equitable right
{ OF both parties.