v. DR. PAUL MARTIN
Judgement was delivered on Saturday by his Honour Judge Lobingier in the case in which Drs. Ransom, Street and Massey sued Dr. Paul Martin to restrain him from practising medicine within 100 miles of Shanghai. Messrs. Fleming, Davies & Bryan acted for plaintifis and Messrs. Jernigan, Fessenden & Rose for defendant. plaintiff application being dismiss. The judgement was as follows,
ed:—The parties to this cause are all physicians and the purpose of the action is to enforce by injunction an alleged acceptance by defendant of a proposal by plaintiffs, who are a firm of practicing physicians in Shanghai.
"That in event of the termination for any cause of your association with us, you will refrain, completely for a period of five years (5), from the practice, of medicine and surgery in any of their branches and from medical work of any description in the International Settlement, the French Concession, the Chinese City. Chapei, Nantao or within a hundred miles of the intersection of Nanking Road and the Bund in the Internatiortal Settlement of Shanghai.
The sole question is whether the minds of the parties met on the foregoing proposal so as to effect a valid agreement. For it is conceded to be the well settled doctrine of this and other courts that such a meeting is a prerequisite for every valid contract.
Prior to associating with plaintiffs defendant had been consulting surgeon of the Siberian Commission of the American Red Cross. On January 3 one of the plaintiffs wrote him at Vladivostok suggesting that he come to Shanghai to negotiate with a view to joining plaintiff's firm. The suggestion was acted upon with the result that defendant came and entered into such negotiations with plaintiffs the second of whom handed him two letters, one (Ex. 4) dated February 1 and renewing the proposal that defendant take said plaintiffs' place in the firm and the other (Ex. A) dated January 31 and embodying another proposal to defendant to become the firm's "'surgeon associate" for six months at a monthly salary of Mex. $400 together with b. One third of collections made fifsm any new patients or other business introduced by you into the firm.
One third of the fees collected for any operations performed by you, Proposal aND CounTER.
The proposal contained six main paragraphs the last of which was the one first above quoted which would preclude defendant from practicing in Shanghai and vicinity for five years. These two communications were answered by defendant handing to the first plaintiff a (Es. B) dated letter
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.