Page images
PDF
EPUB

Any act tending to mislead others

to impair or injure the said interest into thic belief that hic is such suc in the goolwill : Angier v. Wcbcessor, or that the purchasing ber, 14 Allen (Mass.), 211. But partner is not : Smith v. Everett, this is not now law to the extent 27 Beav. 446; Leggott v. Barrett, indicated; and upon the present I5 C, D. 306; s. C., 43 L. T. state of authority they could only (N. S.) 641; Cottrell v. Babcock be restrained from soliciting the old Printing Press Mfg. Co., 54 Conn. customers, or otherwise actively 122; While v. Jones, I Abb. (N. impairing the value of the goodY.) Pr. (N. S.) 328; Moody v. will. Thomas, 1 Disney (Ohio), 294 ; On a bill filed by onc of the part. Williams i'. Farrand (Mich.), 50 N. ners to wind up the partnership, a W. Rep. 446; Brass & Iron Works receiver will be appointed to carry Co. v. Payne (Ohio) (the principal on the business, if necessary to precasc), 33 N. E. Rep. 88. The same serve the goodwill : Marten v. Van rule holds good as to a surviving Schaick, 4 Paige (N. Y.), 479. partner : Davies v. Hodgson, 25 As a rule, the sale by one partner Benv. 177; Johnson v. Holliday, 2 to another of all the partnership DeG. J. & S. 446. But the retiring property, with the understanding partner may bind bimself not to that the purchasing partner is to engage in business, or interfere succeed to the business of the old with the other's trade : Dethless v. firm, carries with it the goodwill Tamisen, 7 Daly (N. Y.), 354 ; as an incident: Brass & Iron Hollis v. Shaser (Kans.), 17 Pac. Works Co. v. l'ayne (Ohio) (the Rep. 86.

principal casc), 33 X. E. Rep. 88. Partners wbo have sold out their The firm name, being part of the interest in the goolwill of a busi goodwill, passes by a sale thereof, ness to a co-partner will be re and becoines the exclusive property strained frou carrying on a rival of the purchasing partner : Burck establishment under a

hardt i'. Burckhardt, 42 Ohio St. similar to that of the first as to inis 474; Brass & Iron Works Co. lead and draw off business : Myers Payne (Ohio), supra. i'. Kalamazoo Buggy Co., 54 Mich. These rules do not always hold 215. So, when two partners had gool, however, and are largely desold to a third their share of the pendent on circumstances : Reeves property of the partnership, and 1. Dcnicke, 12 Abb. (N. Y.), Pr. their interest in tbe goodwill of the (N. S.) 92; Howe i'. Scaring, 6 business, and had agreed in writing Bosw. (X. Y.) 354; S. C., 10 Abb., not to lo anything which should in (N. Y.) Pr. 264. avy wise imipair or injure the said One partner can bind the other interest in the goodwill; but there. by a sale of the goodwill, as of any aster engaged in the same business other iteun of partnership property: and competed with the vendec, but Moreau v. Edwards, 2 Tenn. Ch. did not specially solicit trade, it 347. was held that an injunction would IV. Ils Value, -The value of the issue to restrain them from solicit. goodwill of a business, of course, ing, doing, or obtaining business cannot be shown with certainty : from any of the customers of the Burckhardt v. Burckhardt, 42 Ohio, old firm, and from doing anything SL. 474. It is dependent upon the

name

SO

St. 22.

business it represents: Byrue. Stewart, 124 Pa. 450. And is to be calculated by estimating every advantage secured by succeeding to the business, without reference to the exclusion of any person from

engaging in the same businen: Rammelsberg v. Mitchell, 29 Ohio,

In one case, it was assessed At one year's average net profits: Mellersh v. Keen, 28 Beav. 453.

R. D. S.

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL. LAW.

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF,
FRANK P. PRICHARD, ESQ..

Assisted by
CHAS. C. BINNEY, CHAS. C. TOWNSEND, H. GORDON McCouch,
FRANCIS H. BOHLEN,

OLIVER BOYCE JUDSON.

WILJOTII v. IlexSEL.' SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA.

Reward-llow Earned-l'alidity of Contract-W'ho liable. 1. A reward offered for the prosecution and conviction of persons who violate any of the statutes against bribery or corruption at elections, is earned by procuring the prosecution, followed by a plca of not guilty, of a tax collector who issued false tax receipts. The fact that sentence was suspended is not material, the word convictiou being construed in its popular and not its technical sense.

2. It is not against public policy to offer a reward for the conviction of offenses thercaster coinmitted against clection laws, nor is such a contract without consiileration, if acted on in good faith. The bona fides of such a transaction, where the evidence is conflicting as to whether or not the plaintiff induced the commission of the crime in order to procure the reward, is for the jury.

3. When defendant, as chairman of a state political committee, signed and published an offer of reward for the conviction of persons who should violate the election laws, and subsequently, at a public meeting, deciared that he had $1000 to pay for such a conviction, the question as to his personal liability on the offer is for the jury.

REWARDS. I. How the Contract is formed. cnumcrated in the offer, belongs to a reward, which is a promisc, made the class of conditional contracts, usually by public advertisement, and no liability arises upon it until either to a particular person or per.

it is made complete by acceptance sons, or to any or all persons, to and performance of its conditions. pay a certain sum of money to oue No special form is necessary to who will perform certain services the validity of such a contract

"Reported in 151 Pa. St. 200; 31 W. N. C. 237 ; 25 Au. Rep. 86.

And may

fact, rewarıls are usually offered by C. 18 Pac. Rep. 454. But an offer public advertisement, as said above, of a reward, maile by the mayor, either by means of newspapers or will bind the town, is ratified by of handbills; but as such an offer the city council, which represents seems to create a contract at com the whole body of the inhabitants : mon law, and not one within the Crawshaw ?'. Koxbury, 7. Gray Statutc of Frauds, there would secm (Mass. ), 374. 10 lc no reason why ii may not These cases depend on local laws, le cqually valid if merely a verbal however, and it is reasonably cor. offer: Byrnes 7: Williams, 1 Moore, tain that in most of the United P. C. (U. S.) 154: Reif ::. l'aige, ss Staics, municipal corporations can l'is. 196; S. C. 42 Am. Rep. 731. offer rewards for the arrest and

When once communicated to the punislıment or criminals, and for public, the contract is complete other matters of public concern. upon the compliance of any one The ofleror may prescribe any with its terms, and the offeror is onditions he pleases: Armisi'. liabilc upon it : Brigg's Case, 15 Ct. Conner, 43 Ark. 337. of Cl. 48; Mcl.cod z'. Mearle, 77 Cal. withilraw his olier at any time be87: S. C. 19 Pac. Rep. 189; Picr. fore performancc: Ryer v. Stockson i'. Morch, 82 X. Y. 502. It is well, 14 Cal. 134; Biggers ?'. Owen, not necessary that the one who ac 79 Ga 658; S. C. 5 S. K. Rep. 193; cepts and acts upon the offer should Shuey v. U. S., a Otto (92 U. S.) give the offcror notice of his inten 73. But if the offer stands and its tion so to do: llarson a. Pikc, 16 declared conditions are performed, Ind. 140; Reis '. l'aige, ss Wis. it makes no differcncc that the re496 ; S. C. 42 Am. Rep. 731.

sulu do not meet the private expec. The offeror need not be person tations of the offeror. His secret ally interested in the matter con motives form no part of the concerning which thc rewarıl is offered: tract : Kashing v. Morris, 71 Tex. Furian ?'. Parke, 21 X. J. I.. 310. 584; S. C. 9 S. W. Rep. 739. An agent may offer a reasonable re The offer need not in all cascs be ward for the recovery of property actually communicated to the pubPrelonging to his principal ; auil if lic. It would scem to be saficient he offer an excessive one, the per if it le published where tlic public son who receives tlic property mny might have access to it. Thus, recover a reasonable sum as coin when the governor officially signed pensation : Gibb'x Case, 14 Ct. of a proclamation offering a reward CI. 544. The burgcsecs of a bor. for the apprehension and delivery ough may lawsully offer a reward to the proper jailer of a fugitive for the detection and punishment from justice, and it was entered on of a criminal, as it is rcally the state the executive journal, the offer was acting through thein : Borough of hold complete without further pub York 7'. Piorscht, 23 Pa. St. 391. lication: Auditor v. Rallard, 9 Bush. But the officers of a town in New (Ky.) 272; S. C. 15 Am. Rep. 728 E:gland) cannot do so: Galo v. Such an offer, whcu acted upon, Berwick, si Mc. 174; Abel v. Pem. is not a nudum factum. The per. broke, 61 N. 11. 357. Nor of a formance of its conditions is a good county in Oregon : Mountain v. consideration : Ryer v. Stockwell, Mulliomab Co., 16 Oreg. 379; S. 14 Cal. 134 : Janvrin v. Exeter, 48

X. H. 83; Furman Y. Parke, 21 X. for a reasonable time. In Loring J. L. 310.

i'. Roston, 7 Metc. (Mass.) jug, it It is a mooted question whether was held to have expired after the or not it is essential that the per. lapse of three years and eight sorinance of the services should be months; but in Re Kelly, 39 Coon. made with a knowledge of the or 159, it was held that the offer was fer and with a view to obtaining not barred by the lapse of nearly the reward. Some cases have held threc ycars, but held good until the that these are essential, as without statute of limitations had run them there can be no mutuality against the crimc. between the parties : Hewitt ?' It is not against public policy to Andersou, 56 Cal. 476; S. C. 38 offer a reward for the detection and Am. Rep. 65: Chic. & Alton R. R. conviction of future offenses : Wili'. Sebring, 16 Ill. App. 181; Leev. moth 7. Hensel (the principal Trustees, 7 Dana (ky.) 28, (but casc), 151 Pa. St. 200; S. C. 31 W. sec Auditor ?'. Ballard, infra); X. C. 237: 25 Au. Kop. $6. Furman v. Parke, 21 X. J. 1.. 310; II. Prjurmance of Conditions. Fitch . Snedaker, 38 x. Y. 248; -Before one is catitlel to a reHowland v. Lounds, si X. 1. 604: warl, lic must slow that he has S. C. 10 Am. Rep. 654. But ser. fully complicd with the conditious eral well-considered cases holl that of the offer : Arms i. Conner, 43 neither knowledge nor intcution is Ark. 337; Sall i. Proctor, 3 Metc. essential; and that it is suficient, (Ky.) 447 ; Goldslorough 2: Cralic, if the services lic in fact per 28 Md. 477: Com. i'. Eelwaris, 10 formed : Willianis v. Carwardine, Phila. (Pa. ) 215 : Shuey :'. U. S., 4 B. & Ad. 621; S. C. SC. & P. 2 Otto (92 l'. S.) 73: Joncs v. 566 ; Gibbons r. Proctor, 64 1. T. l'hoenix Bank, 8 N. 1'. 228. A reX. S. 594; S. C. 7 T. L. R. 462; 55 ward for information that will lead J. l'. 616; Fagle v. Smith, a lloust. to the arrest and conviction of a (1)cl.) 293 ; Dawkins :. Sapping criminal is not carued until the ton, 26 Ind. 199. “Would the trial and conviction are brought benefit to the State be diminished about: Ryer 7. Stockwell, 14 Cal. by n discorery of the fact that ap 134. When an arrest is the consepellec, instead of acting from mer quence of the criminal's surrendercenary motives, had been actuated ing himself to justice, the one who solely by a desire to prevent the arrests him on such surrender canescape of a fugitive and to bring a not claim a reward offered for infelon to trial ?"': Auditor v. Bal. formation leading to his conviction : lard, 9 Bush. (Ky.) 572 ; S. C. 15 Bent :. I'nion Bank, 4 C. P. D. i. Am. Rep. 728. On strict legal So, when a rewani was offered for principles, perbaps, the former the arrest of a fugitive and his de opinion is the better ; but the man, livery to a certain jail, and A. arwho arrests a criminal, or recovers rested him and delivered him to a stolen property, has certainly some magistrate, by whom he was put in equity to the reward offered, which the custody of a constable, where courts that proceed on equitable hic remained until he was tried and principles ought to respect. acquitted, it was held that A. had

The offer of a reward is not of not earned the reward: Clanton v. unlimited duration. It is good only Young, 11 Rich. (S. C. L. ) 546. A

more imparting of information or arrest was in fact made by the
suspicion will not carn a reward of claimant or his agents : Shuey v.
sererl for an arrest and conviction : 1. S., 2 Otto (92 U. S.) 73.
Burke r'. Wells, l'argo & Co., 50 The scrvices must be performed
Cal., 218. Information gained by in good faith ; an unauthorizer
one not cotitle to claim a reward arrest of a csendant out on bail
(a public officer), and by him coin will not carn a reward : Marking
municated to another, on whose i'. Needly, S Bush, (Ky.) 22. dro-
advice the criminal confessed to ward is not earned by an arrest of
him and the officer together, and a runaways, if the claimant know
conviction was hind on that confes. they were returning : Goldsbo
sion, was held not to cntitle such rough 7. Cralie, 28 Md. 477. One
person to the reward : Dunhamı v. who assists in the escape or a pris-
Stockbridge, 133 Mass. 233. In oncr, and withholds that fact can-
formntion, which mcrcly tends to not recover a reward for informa-
crente suspicion, without cnough to tion Icalling to liis recapture : Ilas-
justify the arrest of the suspect, san i. Doe, .38 Mc. 45. So, one
will not entitle to a reward offered wlio actually nids in concealing
for thic arrest of the offender: and maintaining a fugitive, and
Austin i'. Supervisors, 24 Wis. 279. finally surrenders him on an ex.

o forliori the claimant cannot press agrecinent with him that he recover, if the necessary services, should Ive given a portion of the or a part of them, were not, in sum received as a reward, is not fact, performed by him: Sander. entitled to it : Bledsoc i'. Jackson, son i. Lane, 43 Mo. App. 158; 4 Snecil. (Temn.) 429. And an inCounty of Juniata i'. McDonald, former cannot recover a reward for 122 l'a. St. 115 ; S. C. 15 Atl. Rcp. recovery of stolen goods, if he had 696; Adair v'. Cooper, 25 Tex. 548. them in his possession, knowing or were performed without any in them to be stolcn, or was, in any tention of claiming the reward : way, connected with the felony : Fallich v. Barber, 1 M. & S. 108. A Jenkins i'. Kclren, 12 Gray (Mass.) reward for information that will lend

330. But it would seen that a reto arrest and conviction, does not ceiver can recover a reward for ininteod information given in casual formation leading to the arrest of conversation, but such as is given the thieves: Tarner v. Walker, 6 with a view to its being acted on, B. & S. 871; S. C. 1 L. R. Q. B. either to the person offering the 611; Aff., 2 L. R. Q. B. 241; 8 B. rewaril, or his agent, or to ani off & S. 31.1. Where the evidence is cer with authority to arrest; not to conNicting as to whether or not a third person with no duity or in thic plaintiff procural the commistcrust in the premises : Lockhart sion of the crime with a view to v'. Barnard, 14 J. & W. 674. When obtaining the rewarı, tbc question a "liberal rewarıl" was offered for of his good faith is for the jury : information leading to the arrest of Wilmoth 7. Hensel (the principal A sugitive from justicc and a speci. casc), 151 Pa. St. 200 ; S. C. 31 W. N. fic sum for his arrest, the "liberal C. 237 ; 25 Atl. Rep. 86. reward" was held due upon the According to one case, a reward giving of the information required, offered for the arrest of two persons but not the specific sum, unless the is not recoverable pro lanto on the

« PreviousContinue »