Case Name: JENNER v. SHOPE
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1910-03-10
Citations: 121 N.Y.S. 599
Docket Number: 
Parties: JENNER v. SHOPE.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 121
Pages: 599–602

Head Matter:
JENNER v. SHOPE.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
March 10, 1910.)
1. Partnership (§ 64 )—Partnership Name.
Under Partnership Law (Consol. Laws, c. 39) § 22, and Penal Law (Con-sol. Laws, c. 40) § 924, prohibiting the" use of the wo.rds “and company” or “& Co.” when no actual partner is represented, the fact that plaintiff's intestate used the name “Jenner & Co.” to represent a business in which he alone was interested did not make the name unlawful, nor render its use by another complying with the statute illegal, since the only illegality consisted in intestate’s act in using the name without an actual partner.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Partnership, Cent. Dig. § 90; Dec. Dig. § 64. ]
2. Executors and Administrators (§ 43 )—Partnership Name—Sale—Use.
Where intestate built up a business under the name “Jenner & Co.,” the right to use the name passed to his estate as a part of the good will and was subject to sale by his administratrix.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Executors and Administrators, Dec. Dig. § 43. ]
3. Partnership (§ 64 )—Partnership Name—Unlawful Use—Sale.
Where intestate in his lifetime built up a business under the name of “Jfenner & Co.,” and at his death his administratrix sold the right to use such name to defendant, it was no defense to an action to recover the price that intestate’s use of the name was illegal, because he had no partner, under Partnership Law (Consol. Laws, c. 39) § 22, and Penal Law (Consol. Laws, c. 40) § 924, prohibiting the use of the words “& Co.” when no actual partner is represented.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Partnership, Cent. Dig. § 90; Dec. Dig. § 64. ]
Bijur, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Ninth District. o
Action by Annie Jenner, as administratrix of the estate of William J. Jenner, against Julian B. Shope. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before SEABURY, LEHMAN, and BIJUR, JJ.
Louis Sturcke, for appellant.
Howard Hasbrouclc, for respondent.
For othei cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep'r Indexes

Opinion:
SEABURY, J.
The statutes (section 22 of the Partnership Law [Consol. Laws, c. 39], and section 924 of the Penal Law [Consol. "Laws, c. 40]) against which the defendant claims that the contract offends are highly penal in character and are to be strictly construed. The name "Jenner & Co." was a lawful name. If the plaintiff's intestate assumed to do business under that name without an actual partner, that act was illegal; but that fact did not render the-use of this name illegal. Any one authorized to use this name could do»so lawfully by complying with the provisions of the statute. The prohibition of the statute is aimed, not at the name, but against the practice of doing business under such a name by one who has no actual partner. If Jenner did business under this name in violation of the provisions of the statute, he made himself liable to the penalty prescribed by the statute; but he did not forfeit the right to this name, or the right to do business under it, provided he should comply with the provisions of law. Upon the death of Jenner the name passed to his estate as a part of the good will of his business. As such it was a valuable asset, which the'plaintiff had the right to sell. When the defendant bought this name, he did not purchase anything which was itself illegal, nor did he purchase permission to violate the law of the state.
Without the consent of the plaintiff he could not have used the name "Jenner & Co." With the consent of the plaintiff he could only do business under the name by complying with the provisions of the statute. Having obtained the plaintiff's consent to use this name upon his promise to pay for it, he now seeks to avoid his obligation by showing that the plaintiff's intestate committed a misdemeanor by not complying with the provisions of the statute when he used the name. If the plaintiff's intestate committed a misdemeanor-, he laid himself open to the penalty which the statute prescribed; but the law does not visit that penalty upon his estate. The plaintiff or her assignee has the right to use the name, provided the name is used in accord with the requirements of law. The defendant's resistance to this claim is an obvious attempt to get something for nothing, and to avail himself of the alleged illegal act of the plaintiff's intestate as a pretext under which he may repudiate his lawful agreement.
The judgment rendered against the defendant is right, and should be affirmed,-with costs.
LEHMAN, J. concurs.