Ce détective est appelé ici une chambre à main, preuve que le terme de Détective n'était pas complètement partagé par tous les contructeurs..

Ce modèle a, d'après le descriptif, un escamotage extra-rapide qui permet de faire les 12 clichés (12 plaques) en l'espace d'une minute. Les plaques exposées peuvent être bloquées pour éviter qu'elles ne se déplacent et se cassent lors du déplacement de l'appareil.

Commercial Court of La Seine.

Presided over by Mr. LEGRAND. on June 13, 1891.

BUSINESS ASSETS. - ASSIGNMENT. TRADE NAME. - REGISTERED OFFICE. - LETTERS. PREDECESSOR. DIVERSION. POSTAL SERVICE. DAMAGES.

In the absence of contrary stipulations, the sale of a business implicitly includes for the purchaser the right to the industrial and commercial use of the predecessor's name, along with all its consequences. Therefore, the successor is the rightful recipient of letters or shipments addressed under the predecessor's name to the commercial establishment's headquarters that has been sold. Consequently, it is without justification that the predecessor arranges for correspondence sent under their name to the sold commercial establishment to be sent to their personal domicile by the postal administration.
In such a case, it is appropriate to prohibit the predecessor, under penalty, from continuing to redirect the said correspondence and to instruct the postal administration to deliver it directly to the successor.
The predecessor who has wrongfully redirected correspondence intended for the successor may be liable for damages.

(Clément et Gilmer vs Laverne).

The court,
Considering the connection between the cases, joins the causes and rules on the whole by a single judgment;
Regarding all the claims:
Noting that Laverne merely claims that he was entitled to prohibit the postal and telegraph administration from delivering letters bearing his name and the said address, 8 and 10, rue de Malte, the former headquarters of his business, of which Clément and Gilmer, his former associates, are the current owners;
However, it appears from the debates and the documents presented that on April 28, 1887, A. Laverne formed a partnership with Clément and Gilmer, under the name of "Laverne et Ce," a general partnership whose purpose was the operation of his optical instrument manufacturing business known as A. Laverne, located at 8 and 10 rue de Malte. On May 3, 1890, following the buyback of Laverne's share, pursuant to the express stipulations of the partnership agreement, Clément and Gilmer became the sole owners of the said business. In fact, these latter are thus the real successors and continuators of the Laverne et Ce partnership and the A. Laverne business, just as A. Laverne himself succeeded Messrs. Gasc and Charconnet, who preceded him;
Noting that the documents provided establish that the clientele to whom the existence of this business is revealed by the products of its manufacturing sends orders to the registered office at 8 and 10 rue de Malte, indifferently in the names of Gasc and Charconnet, A. Laverne, Laverne et Ce, Clément and Gilmer, depending on whether they have before them the products manufactured by one or the other of these trade names, and all of which, although emanating from the same manufacturing facility, bear the various names of those who operated it; in these circumstances, Laverne, who has lived on Boulevard Voltaire for several years and who, since the sale of his business, has no right to interfere in his former business, cannot validly claim a priori that any letters and parcels addressed to 8 and 10 rue de Malte under the name A. Laverne or Laverne are his personal property and should only be delivered to him; it is clear that the contrary presumption is compelling; it is indeed justified that the notoriety attached to products manufactured under the name Laverne alone prompted Clément and Gilmer to acquire the business so named, at a high price of 100,000 francs, according to the provisions of the articles of incorporation of the Laverne et Ce partnership, which imposed on Clément and Gilmer the purchase of the business at the end of the partnership; consequently, the very name to which this notoriety is attached cannot be separated from the business to which it served as a sign, and the goodwill and clientele became inseparable from the name that had hitherto attracted and fixed them; it must therefore be admitted, in the absence of contrary stipulations, that the sale of the business named Laverne, then Laverne et Ce, implicitly included for the buyers the right to the industrial and commercial use of the said name, with all the consequences that such use entails; therefore, it must be said that the true recipients of letters or parcels addressed under the name of Laverne, A. Laverne, and Laverne et Ce, Laverne manufacturer, Laverne optician, etc., at 8 and 10 rue de Malte, i.e., at the domicile and industrial address of the successors of A. Laverne et Ce, can only be said successors, the sole owners of the former Laverne business and the sole holders of the lease for the premises where the manufacturing of optical instruments known by this name is carried out; consequently, it is incorrect for Laverne to claim for himself the letters addressed to his name at rue de Malte and have them sent by the postal administration to his domicile on Boulevard Voltaire; this is a procedure harmful to his successors and unjustified; it is up to him alone to inform his personal friends of his true address to avoid having correspondence that may exclusively belong to him be sent to a location where he has not lived for many years and where he was only known as an industrialist; accordingly, by declaring him unfounded in his counterclaim, he must be ordered to pay 300 francs to Clément and Gilmer as damages justified by the harm that Laverne's actions have caused to his successors;
For these reasons,
States that Clément and Gilmer have the right to the industrial and commercial use of the name Laverne; consequently, they are the only recipients and owners of the correspondence addressed to the business purchased by them at 8 and 10 rue de Malte, under the name Laverne, with or without a first name, with or without a qualification; it is hereby ordered, under penalty of 100 francs per possible violation, that Laverne is prohibited from redirecting telegrams and letters, prospectuses, business papers, parcels, or packages of any kind addressed to 8 and 10 rue de Malte, Paris, under the name A. Laverne, A. Laverne optician, A. Laverne et Ce, or any similar designation, to any other address;
Declares that, upon seeing this judgment, the postal administration will deliver directly to Clément and Gilmer shipments as described above and addressed to 8 and 10 rue de Malte, notwithstanding any prohibition or if one exists by Laverne;
Finds Laverne unfounded in his counterclaim, dismisses it; condemns him by legal means to pay 300 francs to Clément and Gilmer as damages; further condemns him to pay all costs.

(Counsel: Me AUJAY, lawyer at the Court of Paris, for Clément and Gilmer; Me TRIBOULET, appointed, for Laverne)