Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 18.pdf/515

 482

THE GREEN BAG

Ripley Building Company v. Coors, 84 Pac. 817. It is there declared that a surety on bond for faithful performance of a building contract is not released by the fact that he was induced to exe cute the bond by fraudulent representations of the principal, and gave the obligee notice of inten tion to withdraw from the bond before anything had been done under the contract, the faithful performance of which the bond was given to-secure. Cases cited in favor of the proposition that the surety's liability was terminated under the cir cumstances mentioned are distinguished from the case at bar by the fact that they related to continuing contracts of guaranty.

as to justify the court in intervening before the fact of the libel has been established. The case of "Bonnard c'. Ferryman " (7 The Times Law Reports. 453; 1891, 2 Ch., 269) shows how careful the court should be in granting interlocutory injunctions in cases of alleged libel. It was also urged that the plaintiff as a private person was entitled to restrain the publication of a portrait of herself which had been made without her authority and which, although professing to be her portrait, was totally unlike her. No authority in support of this proposition was cited. The present Master of the Rolls referred to this question in "Monson v. Tussauds (Limited) " (10 The Times Law Reports, at p. 203; 1894, i Q.B.. at p. 679), but refused then to express any opinion upon it, as it was not necessary for the decision of that case. The plaintiff has not established, for the purpose of this motion, that she has any such right. Under these circumstances I do not see my way to grant any interlocutory injunction."

TORTS. (Libel — Post Cards — Injunction.) Eng. — The case of Corelli v. Wall (Times Reports, May n, 1906), which not only on account of the position of the plaintiff, Miss Marie Corelli, the well-known authoress, but by reason of the new questions involved in it, has attracted considerable attention, has just been decided in a considered judgment by Mr. TRADE UNIONS. (Contracts — Validity.) La. Justice Swinfen Eady in the Chancery Court. — In Schneider v. Local Union No. 60, United The plaintiff sought to continue till the trial an Assn. Journeymen Plumbers. Gas Fitters. Steam interim injunction obtained by her in the Easter Fitters, and Steam Fitters' Helpers of the United vacation, restraining the defendant from publish States and Canada, 40 South. 700, the court ing or offering for sale certain picture post cards holds that the obligation or pledge which a purporting to depict scenes in the private or home member of a labor union is required to take life of the plaintiff, or any picture post cards which on joining is to be construed with reference to will expose the plaintiff to ridicule or contempt. the declared purposes of the organization and The judge said : " Two of these post cards represent is binding only in so far as those purposes the plaintiff in the public street with a pair of are lawful and are to be attained by lawful ponies, the third represents her on the river means. When such union attempts the accom Avon in a gondola, the fourth in the act of present plishment of an object which is foreign to the ing a cup to the Stratford-on-Avon Boat Club, purposes for which it is organized or attempts and the fifth post card shows the plaintiff in a the accomplishment of those purposes by unlawful garden which exists only in the imagination of the means, the member cannot be regarded as bound artist. These drawings were made without the by his contract with the union to participate in its knowledge of the plaintiff and without any com action. The facts which give rise to this deliver munication being made to her, and a large quantity ance were as follows. The labor union of which were printed and prepared for sale. I am quite the plaintiffs were members recommended another satisfied upon the evidence that the defendants member for an office, the appointment to which had no desire to respect or regard the feelings or rested with a board of public officers. Plaintiffs wishes of the plaintiff with respect to the cards, were members of this board and refused to vote but intended from the first to dispose of them for for the candidate recommended by their union. their own profit as a commercial venture, regard In this situation the court held that plaintiffs' less of any objection the plaintiff might make. obligations to their union and the public being The question, however, which I have to consider distinct from each other, and the latter being is whether the plaintiff has made out such a case paramount, plaintiff's failure to vote for the of legal injury as to require the court to intervene union candidate was no reason why the union by injunction at the present stage of the action. should fine and suspend them, and such action The real ground of the plaintiff's motion is that the having been taken by the union, the plaintiffs cards constitute a libel upon her and that their sale were regarded as being entitled to relief by injunc ought to be restrained on that ground. Although tion and by a judgment remitting the fine imposed, it is well settled that a person may be defamed as reinstating them in the union, and condemning well by a picture or effigy as by written or spoken the union and its officers and members who partici words, I am not satisfied that the cards are pated in its action, to the payment of damages, libellous; and in any event the case is not so clear actual and exemplary.