The Brattleboro daily reformer. (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1913-1955, 1915-10-21
Supreme Court Decision In
Overall Case Against
the Defendants
BRATTLEBORO FIRM
ENTITLED TO S71,75O

Liability of Hooker, Corser and Whit
aker = Next Step Is to Collect tn:
Judgment
decision which was final and sweep
ing in favor of the Hooker, Corser & |
Mitchell Co. of Brattleboro was render |
ed in the Vermont supreme court at
Montpelier yesterday afternoon in the
case Of the Hooker, Corser & Mitchell |
Co, orator, against James F. Hooker, |
William II. Corser and Charles D. Whit /
aker, formerly directors and stockhold-
ers in the Brattleboro company and la
ter proprietors of the Mohawk Overall
Co. of Schenectady, n. Y. The decis-
ion atfirms the decree of the Windham
county court of chancery awarding
damages of $71,750, to which will be
added interest, so that the total award
| will reach practically $4,000.
The supreme court also allowed $150I
which was omitted by the master from
a former decree, which makes the
judgment more than the amount de-
creed by the master. The decree also
affirms the original injunction restrain
ing the defendants from using trade
marks, trade lists, etc, used by the
orator and from employing help en-
tieed away from the orator
In important cases like this it is
always expected that the attorneys for
the defeated side will consider every
possibility of raising some federal
question in order to take their cases
to the United States court. The man
date in this case has not yet been re-
ceived in the county clerk s office, but
lcounsel for the orator and some who
heard the court give its opinion fail
to see wherein any federal question is
lpossible under the court s decision.
The next move in the ease, barring
the possibility above referred to, will
be for the orator to proceed to collect
the judgment, which may be more or
less of a problem and which may con
sumo considerable time. So far as the
, present decision is concerned, however,
the claims of the orator are fully sus-
tanned and the defendants are defeated
on every point raised.
Counsel for the orator. are c. C.
Fits, r. c. Bacon and H. E. Eddy,
and the defendants counsel are II. q.
& T. E. Barber and c. NJ. Miller.
This case is too we'll known to re-
, quire extended review, but in brief it
grew out of the action of the defend
; ants in voting William H. Proctor out
of the directorate of the Brattleboro
! company while they were on the board
J changing the lock on the office and in
: terfering with his handling of the mail
! and subsequently establishing a com
: peting business in Schenectady, manu-
featuring the same lines of goods, tax,
ing away some of the Brattleboro helI
: and selling to the Brattleboro firm Z
customers.
Before the three defendants went tc
Schenectady a hearing on matters III
issue was held before the United
States court in Rutland, in the course
, of which an agreement was reached dis
posing of matters involved and giving
Mr. Proctor the option of selling his
+ stock to the three defendants or OF
J. buying their stock, at a figure named
', Mr.. Proctor organized company an(
O bought the stock of the defendants
e who then established the Mohawk Ov
erall Co. in Schenectady.
IT The Brattleboro company secured al
!. injunction in Vermont restraining th'
e defendants from employing certain
d statesmen formerly employed by th
Hooker, Corser & Mitchell Co., from
using the trade lists or lists of Gus
toners of the orator and from selin:
directly or indirectly, goods similar t
those made by the orator, and order
ing the defendants to pay damages sus
tanned by the orator arising from tn
III use of it's lists of customers, trade sc
II crets, etc. The defendants claimed tha
= by reason of the Rutland agreemen
u the orator was estopped from furthe
q proceedings, but the orator clalme
Ih that the establishment of the Schenec
tady business was in pursuance of
Oh unlawful conspiracy, and on these an
IS, other questions the case has bee
O. through the Vermont, New York an
re United States courts, including th
en- the United States supreme court.
Of Damages were fixed by Special Mas
er ter NJ. c. Webber of Rutland and o
5h his report Chancellor F. NJ Butler i
lie sued decree in the Windham count
at court last spring. Chancellor Butle
made certain changes in the origin;
on injunction order and omitted one itel
At which is now taxed against the defen'
ants. These were not regarded by tt
as. orator as of sufficient importance
We take to the supreme court, neverth
,ol less an appeal was made, for the sal
of hurrying the case along. The d
I'M Tense also took exceptions on Il
1e- ground that certain evidence WI
mt wrongfully admitted, that certain OF
er evidence as to the Rutland contra
was Wrongfully excluded and that Il
err decree was against the weight of Il
S. evidence. Various other claims we