Hello, I purchased an appraisal by e-mail for a bottle that was dug from the earth about 20 years
ago and has been sitting in a hutch in my house. I have always been curious about
it and I got some alone time so I thought I'd find out about it. I punched in the
name on it, and your site was the first so I thought I'd see what you had to
say. I washed it out with warm water as it was packed with earth. The name on it
is S.N.PIKE'S Magnolia, The Fleischmann Co., Cincinnati. It is still pretty dirty
but has no cracks or chips on it. In looking at your website, it indicates that it
is from 1840-1870, due to the double piece on top and the pontil on the bottom. It also has no machine marks. My friend took some photos which I'll try to
enclose. The Bottle actually came from a coal
slag pile in Logan County, West Virginia, and was given to me by my brother-in
Today, Fleischmann's is best known for the yeast it makes. They were the first company to produced compressed yeast, which they used in the distilling process.
He was educated in Vienna and in Prague, and
when only nineteen years old began an active business life in a general
merchandise house. He came to America in 1866, and for two years was engaged
in the distilling business in New York city. In 1868 he removed to
Cincinnati, and has been there ever since. It was after his arrival in
Cincinnati that he invented and had patented improved machinery for use in
distilleries. Subsequently he originated the extensive manufacture of what
is known throughout the length and breadth of this country as Fleischmann's
compressed yeast, a product daily circulated in nearly every city and hamlet
in the United States. Besides being the proprietor of this celebrated
manufactory, he is the senior member of a distilling firm, director of the
Cincinnati Cooperage company, and president of the Market National bank of
Cincinnati. Mr. Fleischmann, as a republican,
was a member of the Ohio senate in 1880, and was subsequently appointed a
Cincinnati fire commissioner and a trustee of Longview hospital. In 1892
ex-Governor McKinley appointed him an aide on his staff. In 1895 he was
again elected to the Ohio senate. It is interesting to note that during his
first session in the general assembly Mr.
Fleischmann introduced a bill proposing that the state house should
be lighted by electricity. The idea was looked upon as impracticable and
with some degree of ridicule. His somewhat advance notion was vindicated,
however, when a few years later the state house was wired completely, and
has since been illuminated with incandescent lights.
In making whiskey, the company was very successful before, during and after prohibition. The Brand S. N. Pike's Magnolia Whiskey did not originally belong to the Charles Fleischmann Company which began operations as a distiller in 1870. The history behind your bottle is interesting due to the fact that a court case argued over the rights to transfer a trademark became part of case law.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Louisiana.
This action was commenced in the court below by the appellees.
Argued Apr. 7, 1880
Decided Apr. 19, 1880.
The case is suited in the opinion. Messrs. R. T. Merrick and M. F. Morris, for appellant: Sebastian on Trade-Marks, the latest English authority on this subject, lays down the law as ' follows: "A trade-mark is assignable and transmissible, but only in connection with the goodwill of the business concerned with the goods or classes of goods to which it relates." A trade-murk cannot exist in gross and unattached to specific articles; for if that could be so, the mark might come to be an instrument of deception, instead of a guaranty of genuineness.
In an assignment of the business and good-will, the trade-mark passes as a matter of course, or if specially excepted, must cease to be available by the vendor. Sebastian, Trade-Marks,
There can be no doubt, therefore, that in 1864, S. N. Pike ceased to be the individual owner of the trade-mark in question, and the firm of' S. N. Pike and Company became the owners of it. It follows as a necessary consequence, that in 1868, during the continuance of the partnership. Pike individually had no right to dispose of the trade-murk, and could give no title to Mills, Johnson and Company, nor to anyone else. Neither could he as a partner of the firm of S. N. Pike & Co. convey the right to anyone to use the trade-mark, without the concurrence of his copartner. Messrs. Hoadly, Johnson & Colston and Thos. Allen Clarke, for appellees.
Mr. Justice Field delivered the opinion of the court: The question presented in this case relates to the ownership of a trade-mark used by the complainants on packages and barrels containing whisky manufactured and sold by them in Cincinnati, and arises out of the following facts: In 1849, one S. N. Pike, doing business in that city as a wholesale dealer in whisky, adopted as a trade-mark for his manufacture the words, "S. N. Pike's Magnolia Whiskey. Cincinnati, Ohio," enclosed in a circle, which he placed on packages and barrels containing the liquor. Between that date and 1863 he was in partnership with different persons doing 'business there under the name of S. N. Pike & Co
In 1863, having dissolved his connection with others, he took as partners two of his former clerks, Tilney and Kidd, continuing the original firm name and soon afterwards opened a branch house in New York City. The same trademark was used by the new firm, as it had been by the preceding firm, without any change. At this time, and subsequently until its sale in 1868, the real property in Cincinnati, upon which the business was conducted, and the distillery, with its fixtures and appurtenances, belonged to Pike individually. In 1868, the firm removed its entire business to New York City, and Pike sold the real property in Cincinnati, and the stills, engines, boilers, tubing and all apparatus in his distillery, for the consideration of $12,000, to the firm of Mills, Johnson & Co., who were also engaged in the manufacture and sale of whisky at that place.
At the same time, Pike executed and delivered to the purchasers a separate instrument, stating that, having sold his premises to them, he extended to them and their successors the use of all his brands formerly used by him in his Cincinnati house. Mills, Johnson & Co. continued for some years the manufacture and sale of whisky on the premises thus purchased, using, without objection from anyone, the brands previously used by S. N. Pike & Co. They were succeeded in business by the complainants, who. it is admitted, are entitled to all the rights which they possessed in the trade-mark in question. S. N. Pike died in 1872, and his surviving partners formed a new partnership, under the name of George W. Kidd & Co., which was subsequently dissolved, and to its business Kidd, the appellant in this case, succeeded. The complainants finding that whisky bearing this trade-mark, manufactured by the firm of Tyra, Hill & Co., of St. Louis, was sold in large quantities by dealers in New Orleans, filed the present bill to enjoin the dealers from selling or trafficking in whisky contained in packages thus marked.
By an amendment to the bill, the defendant Kidd war made a party He filed an answer and cross-bill, asserting title to the trade-mark as surviving partner of the firm of S. N. Pike & Co., and setting forth that Tyra, Hill & Co. were acting under a license from him.
The principal question for determination is, whether the complainants, claiming under the sale of Pike to their predecessors, or the defendant, Kidd, claiming as survivor of S. N. Pike & Co., have the exclusive right to the trade-mark mentioned.
The court below decided that the complainants possessed the exclusive right, and our judgment approves of the decision. It is admitted that Pike was the owner of the trade-mark when he took two of his clerks into partnership and formed the firm of S. N. Pike & Co. He did not place his interest in the trade-mark in the concern as a part of its capital stock. He allowed the use of it on packages containing the whisky manufactured by them: but it no more became partnership property from that fact than did the realty itself, which he also owned and on which their business was conducted. He was engaged in the same business before the partnership as afterwards, and taking his clerks into partnership changed in no respect, beyond its terms, their relation to his individual property. Their subsequent conduct, moreover, plainly shows that they claimed no interest in the trade-mark. They knew of his conveyance of its use to Mills, Johnson &. Co. on the first of October, 1868, when they removed their own business to New York, and made no objection to the transfer. Their subsequent correspondence discloses, beyond question, their knowledge of the transfer and recognition of his power to make it. That transfer was plainly designed to confer whatever right Pike possessed. It, in terms, extends the use of the trade-mark to Mills, Johnson & Co. and their successors. Such use, to be of any value, must necessarily be exclusive. If others also could use it, the trade-mark would be of no service in distinguishing the whisky of the manufacture in Cincinnati; and thus the Company would lose all the benefit arising from the reputation the whisky there manufactured had acquired in the market. The right to use the trade-mark is not limited to any place, city or State and, therefore, must be deemed to extend everywhere.
Such is the uniform construction of licenses to use patented inventions. If the owner imposes no limitation of place or time. I the right to use is deemed perpetual and co-extensive with the whole country The claim of Kidd to the trade-mark, as survivor of the partners in the firm of S. N. Pike & Co. is without any merit. Pike, in his I lifetime, repudiated any ownership in the trade mark after his sale, and Kidd knew that fact, and never even pretended that the firm had any such right until after Pike's death. As to the right of Pike to dispose of his trademark in connection with the establishment where the liquor was manufactured, we do not think there can be any reasonable doubt. It is true, the primary object of a trade-mark is to indicate by its meaning or association the origin of the article to which it is affixed. As distinct property, separate from the article created by the original producer or manufacturer, it may not be the subject of sale. But when the trade-mark is affixed to articles manufactured at a particular establishment and acquires a special reputation in connection with the place of manufacture, and that establishment is transferred either by contract or operation of law to others, the right to the use of the trademark may be lawfully transferred with it. Its subsequent use by the person to whom the establishment is transferred is considered as only indicating that the goods to which it is affixed are manufactured at the same place and are of the same character as those to which the mark was attached by its original designer. Such is the purport of the language of Lord Cranworth in the case of Leather Cloth Co. v. Am. Leather Cloth Co., reported in 11th Jur. (N. S.), 513. See, also. Ainsworth v. Walmesley. 35 L. J. Eq. CS. S.). 352-5, and Hall v. Barrows, 10 Jur. (N. The present case falls within this rule. Decree affirmed.
The Fleischmann Company did not take control of the brand until later. I found one reference which listed The Fleischmann Co., Cincinnati, O. Whiskey, Magnolia Brand. dated 1912. Unfortunately, the bottle dates to the turn of the century not as you hoped to an earlier time, It is a nice looking bottle and so should bring $30-40. Digger