Sperry & Hutchinson Co. v. Louis Weber & Co.

161 F. 219, 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 5104
CourtDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois
DecidedApril 22, 1908
DocketNo. 28,938
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 161 F. 219 (Sperry & Hutchinson Co. v. Louis Weber & Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Sperry & Hutchinson Co. v. Louis Weber & Co., 161 F. 219, 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 5104 (N.D. Ill. 1908).

Opinion

KOHLSAAT, Circuit Judge.

The bill herein is filed for an injunction, restraining the defendant and its representatives from “buying, selling, procuring, disposing of, or otherwise dealing or trafficking in the trailing stamps issued by the Sperry & Hutchinson Company * * * and from advertising so to do.” The cause is now before the court on a motion for a preliminary injunction, and for other relief. Complainant is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling to its customers what are known as trading stamps. These are supplied under and subject to the terms of a written contract, which reads as follows, viz.:

“This agreement, made the-day of ——■—, 190 — > by and between the Sperry & Hutchinson Company, a corporation of the state of New Jersey (hereinafter called the ‘Company’), party of the first part, and --, a --— of --, doing a general--business at ---- street,--, state of -, party of the second part, Wttnessoik: Tliaf: in consideration of the mutual promises and agreements hereinafter contained, said parties agree as follows: Said company agrees to advertise in the directory of its ‘S. & II.’ green trading stamp books distributed in the city or town of -, the name, business, and aforesaid business address of the party of the second part; to deliver to the people of said city or town said books, and explain to them how to use the same; and to redeem said stamps with goods and merchandise when presented by the customers of its subscribers iu said books in lots of nine hundred and ninety (990) stamps, and according to law, collected in the manner proscribed and subject to the conditions heroin and in said books. Said company agrees to deliver, and the party of the second part agrees to order and receive from said company, its green trading stamps, in lots of not less than - pads per lot, each pad containing - thousand stamps, and to pay upon delivery thereof, the sum of -- dollars per pad, for the use of said stamps as an advertising medium, and agrees to supply said stamps from the aforesaid business address only, as an inducement for cash trade to all persons who pay cash for purchases; to give out said stamps as follows, and not otherwise to dispose of the same without the prior consent in writing of said company, viz.: To give to each [220]*2201 customer ior redemption only by said comi>any one stamp for each and every ten cents represented in the retail price of merchandise, for which cash is paid by said customer. Said party of the second part also agrees to display signs furnished by said company, which read, ‘We give S. & H. green trading stamps,’ or otherwise in the windows and other prominent places about its stords, and agrees not to procure said stamps in any way exceprt direct from said company, either during the term of this contract, or at any time, and also agrees to mention favorably the use of said, stamps in all newspaper and other advertisements published by or for it; and not to use any other coupons, trading stamps, or similar device during the term of this contract, and not to join in any combination of merchants for the purpose of discontinuing the use of said company’s trading stamps. It is mutually agreed between tbe parties hereto that the. property in and title to said stamps and signs remain in the said company, and shall not in any event pass to the party of the second part, or any other person, firm, or corporation and that this agreement shall remain in force for one year from the date of its execution, and shall be considered renewed for an equal period from year to year, unless written notice to tbe/ contrary, be given by either party to the other at least thirty (30) days prior to the yearly periods of expiration; and, provided such notice be given by said company, it may thereafter omit from its subsequently printed directory and advertisements the name of the party of the second part. It is mutually understood and agreed that this contract is made for the benefit of tbe subscriber’s customers as well as of tbe parties hereto.
“In witness whereof, the parties hereto have executed the foregoing agreement the day and year above written.
“The Sperry & I-Iutchinson Company,
“By-.
“N. B. — No agent has authority to alter the foregoing agreement in any way. No alteration therein shall be effective unless countersigned by an officer of the company at tbe home office, 320 Broadway, New Xork City.”

Each stamp has printed on its reverse side the following, viz.:

“Property of the Sperry & Hutchinson Co. Not transferable except as provided in notice in trading stamp book.”

On the cover of the book, in large letters, are the words:

“CAUTION. THIS PAD IS NOT TRANSFERABLE.”

The method of transacting business is as follows, viz.: The stamps are delivered to merchant subscribers in pads or books of 1,000 or 5,000 each, for a certain consideration. Upon receiving the same the customer subscribes the following:

“Conditions Under Which ‘S. & H.’ Green Trading Stamps are Furnished: Solely for the advertising of the company’s subscribers, and for redemption by their customers. The title to ail Sperry & Hutchinson green trading stamps remains in the Sperry & Hutchinson Company; the subscribing merchant transfers only the right of redemption to his customers. Once issued by subscribers, tbe stamps cannot again be used for advertising purposes.”

It is alleged by the complainant, and not' disproven, that complainant and its predecessors originated this method of advertising, as it is ' termed in the bill, and that large sums of money and great labor have been expended in perfecting and popularizing it; so that at the time the bill was filed its green trading stamps had become widely known as a valuable .medium for advertising. As a part of the benefit to its subscribers, complainant causes circulars to be distributed, house to house canvasses to be made, and the attention of customers to be attracted to the subscribers’ business, thus taking the place, to a degree, [221]*221or supplementing ordinary advertisements. The subscriber is authorized to issue one stamp with every 10 cent cash sale. By this means, it is claimed, cash trade has been greatly improved, as well as sales generally. A trading stamp book is furnished by the complainant, in which purchasers who receive stamps may paste them. These hold, approximately, 1,000 or more stamps when filled. Complainant redeems the stamps at a rate not stated in the record. Whether or not there is a profit in the redemption to the complainant arising from the price paid for the stamp book by the subscriber, or whether it is expected that any considerable part of the stamps will never be presented for redemption, so that gain would arise from that source, is not shown.

It is the essence of complainant’s business that its subscribers shall get the full benefit of its methods of advertising and assistance. Its stamps are not, in the full sense, property. Their nontransferability is an essential element of tlieir value, both to complainant and its subscribers. It may be assumed that both parties are in the transaction for profit. It is not fair to say that complainant’s only interest consists in the presentation of the stamps for redemption, if the means employed to that end result in killing the demand of subscribers for the stamps.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Rance v. SPERRY AND HUTCHINSON COMPANY
1965 OK 63 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1965)
Sperry & Hutchinson Co. v. Berkeley
44 Misc. 2d 331 (New York Supreme Court, 1963)
Merchants Green Trading Stamp Co. v. Vornado, Inc.
183 A.2d 489 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1962)
New England Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. National Merchandising Corp.
141 N.E.2d 702 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1957)
Bristol-Myers Co. v. Lit Bros.
33 Pa. D. & C. 52 (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, 1938)
Waring v. WDAS Broadcasting Station, Inc.
194 A. 631 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1937)
Waring v. WDAS Broadcasting Station, Inc.
27 Pa. D. & C. 297 (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, 1936)
Sacks v. Neptune Meter Co.
144 Misc. 70 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1932)
People v. Berger
142 Misc. 178 (New York Court of General Session of the Peace, 1931)
Sperry & Hutchinson Co. v. Siegel, Cooper & Co.
140 N.E. 864 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1923)
Sperry & Hutchinson Co. v. Siegel, Cooper & Co.
225 Ill. App. 540 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1922)
Harvey Hubbell, Inc. v. General Electric Co.
262 F. 155 (S.D. New York, 1919)
Sperry & Hutchinson Co. v. McKelvey Hughes Co.
64 Pa. Super. 57 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1916)
Attorney General ex rel. James v. National Cash Register Co.
182 Mich. 99 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1914)
Searchlight Gas Co. v. Prest-O-Lite Co.
215 F. 692 (Seventh Circuit, 1914)
Sperry & Hutchinson Co. v. Pommer
208 F. 804 (N.D. New York, 1913)
Prest-O-Lite Co. v. Davis
209 F. 917 (S.D. Ohio, 1913)
District of Columbia v. Kraft
35 App. D.C. 253 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1910)
Fonotipia Ltd. v. Bradley
171 F. 951 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern New York, 1909)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
161 F. 219, 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 5104, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sperry-hutchinson-co-v-louis-weber-co-ilnd-1908.