LAW JOURNAL REPORTS FOR THE YEAR 1896. CASES IN The House of Lords and in the Privy Council, IN The Court of Appeal and the Court for Crown Cases Reserved. AND IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE VIZ. Chancery; Queen's Bench; and Probate, Divorce, and EDITOR: JOHN MEWS. SUB-EDITORS: W. E. GORDON AND A. J. SPENCER. UNIVERS CHANCERY DIVISION, VOL. LXV. [ CONTEMPORARY WITH LAW REP. [1896] 1 CH.; [1896] 2 CH.; AND LAW REP. [1896] A. C.] LONDON: STEVENS AND SONS, LIMITED, 119 AND 120 CHANCERY LANE, Law Publishers and Booksellers. 1896. LAW JOURNAL REPORTS FOR THE YEAR 1896 In the House of Lords (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL IN ACTIONS REPORTED BY JAMES EYRE THOMPSON, BARRISTER-AT-LAW; IN THE Court of Appeal (ON APPEAL FROM THE CHANCERY DIVISION), REPORTED BY AUBREY JOHN SPENCER, AMYAND JOHN HALL, and AND ON APPEAL THEREFROM TO THE COURT OF APPEAL AND HOUSE OF LORDS. MICHAELMAS 1895 TO MICHAELMAS 1896. 59 Victoriæ. Partnership-Right of Partner to take Extracts from Books of Firm-Solicitation of Customers of Old Firm by Retiring Partner-Injunction. A partner who has no share in the goodwill of the business is not entitled during the partnership to extract from the books of the firm the names and addresses of customers for the purpose of soliciting such customers on his own behalf after the termination of the partnership. Decision of the COURT OF APPEAL (64 Law J. Rep. Chanc. 392; Law Rep. [1895] 1 Ch. 462) reversed. Labouchere v. Dawson (41 Law J. Rep. Chanc. 427; Law Rep. 13 Eq. 322) approved. Pearson v. Pearson (54 Law J. Rep. Chanc. 32; Law Rep. 27 Ch. D. 145) overruled. The sole question raised in this appeal was, in the words of Lord Macnaghten, whether a person who has sold the goodVOL. 65.-CHANC. will of his business, or one in the position of the respondent who has been taken into partnership on the terms that on the expiration of the partnership the goodwill shall belong solely to his partner, is at liberty to solicit the old customers of the business to give their custom to him in preference over his former partner. The facts sufficiently appear in Lord Herschell's judgment. June 25, 27, 28.-Graham Hastings, Q.C., and H. H. Cozens-Hardy, Q.C. (9. Leigh Clare with them), for the appellants.-A man cannot derogate from his own grant, or as Lord Romilly, M.R., said in Labouchere v. Dawson (1), depreciate what he has sold. The earliest decisions on the subject are those of Lord Eldon in Shackle v. Baker (2), Cruttwell v. Lye (3), and Kennedy v. Lee (4). But they are not decisive, as Shackle v. Baker (2) was only in the form of remedy whether by injunction or damages; (1) 41 Law J. Rep. Chanc. 427; Law Rep. 13 Eq. 322. (2) 14 Ves. 468. (3) 17 Ves. 335. (4) 3 Mer. 452. B |