The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1913-10-17
CASES OF INTEREST

1 pfont, however repugnant to ethics in
 Dus1ness, has been held not to consti- tute unfair competition in Westnain- l lster Laundry Company vs. Hesse En- l VeloDe Company, 156 Southwestern Reporter, 767. P1afntiff's idea was a shreWd one, based along the lines of
 human nature. principally curiosity. 1 Plaintiff published on sign boards, and l by way of printed cards, what is known as a ssbIind'' advertisement; l the fundamental idea Of which is the 1 use of some striking device well 1 adapted to attract public attention, put unaccoInpanied upon it's first ap- l pearance by the name of the adver-
 tiser using it; other matter being ad- Idea later, and the name of the adver- l tfser being given when the curiosity of fthe public has been sufficiently arous- l ed by the blind nature of the adver-
 tisement, The device employed in this instance was the word sStopur-
 kfcken.'' After the word ssStopur-
 kicken" had been so used for a time.
 and before plaintiff had issued a l proper supplement to the advertise
 nent to disclose it's own name and identity, the defendant printed and had distributed large number of l cards bearing the word stStopurkick- | en- and followed by it's own name.
 And right here is where plaintiff
 'Startedtokick." Suit was brought which resulted in a Judgment for
 pIaintin for $1. Defendant appeal ed. The St. Louis Court of Appeals of Missouri holds that, to constitute ! unfair competition by the use of words or phrase, the word or phrase must have been long employ ed in connection with a business or certain goods so as to be understood by the public as designating the par ticular goods or business, and that although defendant interposed and used the same word on cards bearing ffE na Y11o fo3 competition appears when considered in the sense of the law on the subject
 and until plaintiff obtained a right thereto by actual user in connection with it's product, the word "Stopur- kfcken must be regarded as publici juris and available to all who desire to employ it identfcally as was the orig
 inal phrase, Stop your kicking.,'
 Judgment. is reversed.
 It may be law, but is it Justice? ?-
 In the case of DrobneyE vs Lukens
 Iron & Steel Go. The company had
 organized benevolent association in
 which Drobney was insured for $1,-#l
 900. Its articles provided that the
 payment Of insurance money to the
 benefit society should act as release from all claims arising from personal injuries, and that if an action for per- sona1 injury be brought that all rights as a member of the society should be l
 
 ceipt for S1,0O0 in full payment of 1 the benefits due under the certificate, Il and in addition for the sum of Sl rel leased the company from all claims l for damages on account of the death 1 of her husband. She claimed that she did not understand the effects of l her release, and that she told the | company's representative that she did l not intend to release any claim for | damages She claimed that the com a17vE ESp the $1 mentioned in the receipt was present for her baby. Suit for the wrongful death of her husband was dismissed and the circuit court of ap- peals, one Judge dissenting, affirmed the Judgment of dismissal They said that the inquiry as to a fraud need not be pursued, because, striking out all evidence of a release in the docu- Tnent, 1t remains 9 receipt for insur- ance money, as she was correctly told 1t was This payment could have been made and accepted only in ac- cordance with the explicit provisions or the constitution and bylaws of the beneficial association. They made it full satisfaction Of claims by Martin Drobney or his representa- tive tive against the defendant. The plain t1n, though not a member received E: the money through her husbands It made no difference whether she could read or not or Whetner she knew the conditions upon { which the payment was made. The transaction created a situation which i relieved the defendant of all liability 1 because of valuable consideration ( moving from 1t to the benevolent as- and it's nembe .'' The dis I senting opinion is in part as follows:
 The plaintiff in error has a cause or action if she has not relieved the { defendant of accepting the insurance it money and signing receipt in full for : death claim. If the papers bearing I4 her mark are to be construed literal 1 y against her, there is no doubt that I she has signed away her entire right $ to recover for the death Of her hus- $ oand. The plaintiff is an ignorant i Foreigner unable to read and write l '
 She does not understand l business, and had to transact busin ess 1 through an interpreter A receipt f signed by her contained a full re- ( ease of her claims under the benefit 6 policy for $1,0GO, and for this sum r tnd $1 paid by a separate check she [ pleased all claims for the death of s Ter husband She insists that she e lid not intend to sign away her right l t if action for her husbands death f md, finding that she did so, endeav- t 'red to pay back the money. That e he should have released for $1 a C lain1 for the death of her husband o vho was but AZ years of age, seems b lighly improbable. do not think a | necessary to establish actual false f tatement on the part of the defen- r ant. If plaintiff, through ignorance Ie f her rights and understanding of r he facts, was induced by defendant or. n ts agent to sign release which she U lever intended to sign, she should not n 'e held by its terms This ls 'laintiff, by reason of her Ignorance a nd utter inability to understand our 2 anguage, was as helpless in the hands C f the defendant and it's agent as an n nfant or an imbecile. Under such r circumstances, it was their duty to tell ? Ter the truth not only, but to be more II han ordinarily solicitous that she full q q comprehend what she was doing tl nd the true import of the papers e igned by her. Let 11s ess11rlhe in or.- 1 U