
    ROWLAND C. HAZARD, et al., Respondents, v. JOHN R. CASWELL, et al., Appellants.
    
      Partnership—successorship in business, and consequent right to use of old firm, name, Prade-mwrks and labels—what sufficient evidence of.
    
    Before Sedgwick and Freedman, JJ.
    
      Decided April 5, 1880.
    Appeal from judgment enjoining the use of a certain label and trade-mark.
    The court below found that the plaintiffs were the sole successors of the firm of Caswell, Hazard & Co.
    The court, at General Term, said: “The right to use the said firm name and trade mark in question flows from such fact. There was more than a mere dissolution and division of assets. There was an actual continuance of the old business and firm name by the plaintiffs at all the established places of business, a transfer to them of the retiring, partner’s interest in whatever was characteristic of the old business, and on the part of the retiring partner for several years a clear recognition of, and acquiescence in, the mode in which the plaintiffs did continue the said business and firm name. In four receipts signed by the retiring partner, the plaintiffs are expressly styled ‘ successors to the old firm.’ These features distinguish the case at bar from Morgan v. Schuyler (21 Alb. Law J. 154). The facts being as stated, the plaintiffs had a right to bring themselves within the statute (Laws 1854, c. 400) permitting the continuance of the firm name in certain cases, and as a consequence they are, upon all the facts found, entitled to the relief awarded to them.”
    
      Anderson & Howland, for respondents.
    
      
       See Adams v. Adams, 7 Abb. New Cas. 293.
    
   Opinion by Freedman, J.; Sedgwick, J., concurred.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.  