#### Fred Miller Brewing Company, Appellee, v. Moir Hotel Company and Harry James, Appellants.

Gen. No. 21,070.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Interlocutory appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Jesse A. Baldwin, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court.

Reversed.

Opinion filed November 30, 1914.

Statement of the Case.

Bill by Fred Miller Brewing Company against Moir Hotel Company and Harry James to restrain defendants from violating a written contract between the complainant and the Hotel Company whereby the said Hotel Company agreed to use and advertise only the domestic draught beer manufactured by complainant on certain premises, described in the contract as “property at the southeast corner of Clark and Madison streets, in the City of Chicago, County of Cook and State of Illinois, now occupied by the Morrison Hotel and Addition,” of which the Hotel Company “is the owner or lessee under long-term leases,” and “the premises at No. 65-67 West Madison Street * * * now occupied by the Edelweiss Restaurant.”

The bill prayed for an injunction restraining defendants from using or advertising other than complainant’s beer at No. 17 South Clark street, which was occupied by the Hotel Company under a short-term lease, and was located on Clark street south of the premises occupied by the hotel. The court granted an injunction pendente lite restraining defendants from using, selling, consuming or giving away upon the premises No. 17 South Clark street any domestic draught beer other than complainant’s and from displaying any advertising matter upon the premises which would advertise any other such beer manufactured by any person other than the complainant. To reverse the decree, defendants appeal.

*33Abstract of the Decision.

Contracts, § 215a*—agreement to use a certain kind of beer on certain premises construed. A written contract between a brewing company and a hotel company whereby the latter agreed to use and advertise only the domestic draught beer manufactured by the brewing company on premises now occupied by a hotel and addition, of which the hotel company “is the owner or lessee under long-term leases,” and other premises occupied by a certain restaurant, held not to cover premises in possession of the hotel company under a short-term lease and not used or intended to be used for hotel purposes, and it also appearing that it could not be included in the premises occupied by said restaurant.

John G. Campbell, for appellants.

Winston, Payne, Strawn & Shaw, for appellee; Edward W. Everett and R. S. Tuthill, Jr., of counsel.

Mr. Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.