A NEW ZEALAND CASE IN CHANCERY.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 1860, 9 February 1880, Page 3

A NEW ZEALAND CASE IN CHANCERY.

Vice-Chancellor Sir R. Malins has heard a case in which the Australian Mortgage, Land and Finance Company, Limited, were the plaintiffs and the Australian and New Zealand Mortgage Company, Limited, were the defendants. Tho plaintiff company is an old and well-established company, registered under the Joint Stock Companies' Act, having an office in Bishopsgate street, and it has for many years carried on an extensive and highly successful business in England and Australia. The defendant oompany, whoso office is in Gracechurch street, was formed during the present year, for the purpose of carrying on business in Australia and New Zealand, and was registered as a joint-stock company on the 14th of November last, under the abovenumed title. The object of both companies is to borrow money in England at a low rate of interest and invest it in the colonies within the scope of their business at a high rate of interest. The action was brought virtually to restrain the defendant company from using the words "Australian" and "Mortgage" in their title, so as to mislead the public into the belief that they were the plaintiff com pany. It now came on to be heard upon motion for an injunction. Mr Glasse, Q.C., and Mr Romer appeared for the plaintiff company, and urged on their behalf that the names of the two companies were so alike as to be calculated to cause mistakes, and said that there was evidence of mistakes having already occurred. That the plaintiff company was commonly known as tho " Australian Mortgage Company." Mr Pearson, Q 0., and Mr Millar for the defendant company were stopped by his lerdship. The VioeOhancollor, in refusing to grant the injunction, said the plaintiff company had established a very successful business under the directionof first-rate men. And it seemed to have occurred to the defendant company, who were also, his lordship said, under first-rate directors, that there was room for another company having the same objects as the plaintiff company. The name of the defendant company correotly described the objeots for which it was founded. The plaintiffs admitted that there was no fraudulent intent on the part of the defendants in assuming their present name. The question, therefore, was simply whether the title under which the defendant company was registered was or was not calculated to deceive or mislead. The plaintiff company had their offices in Bishopsgate street, whilst that of the defandants' was in Gracechurch street. Letters, therefore, rightly addressed to either company could not possibly be delivered |at the office of the other. But suppose letters should be addressed to either company simply at "London" or "London, E.G.," and should miscarry, even then the mistake would be apparent and easily rectified upon opening the letters themselves. And he must assume that either company would act honorably in such a case. Both on the principles laid down by the authorities, and on the merits of the present case, he did not consider the title of the defendant company so calculated to deceive as to justify the interference of the Court. He therefore dismissed the motion and refused the injunction.