but  declined  to  do  so,  and  instructed  the  jury  to  find
that  there  was  no  fraud.     In  this  there  was  error.
It  was  also  held  by  the  court  that  the  defendant,  Da-
vidson, was  entitled  to  have  his  personal  property  ex-
emption paid  him  by  the  assignee  out  of  the  partner-
ship assets.  In  this  there  was  error.  Boyd  v.  Redd,
118  N.  C,  680.
There  are  no  liens  attached  to  this  property  that  we
can  see,  and  it  seems  to  us  to  be  a  proper  case  for  the
court  to  appoint  a  receiver  to  take  charge  of  this  part-
nei'ship  fund,  and  to  administer  the  same  among  the
creditors,  whether  the  deed  is  set  aside  or  not.
It  cannot  be  allowed  to  run  on  indefinitely.  After
the  individual  creditors  of  Davidson  are  eliminated  and
his  claim  for  the  1^500  exemption  declared  illegal,  the
distribution  under  the  trust  would  be  substantially  the
same  as  if  the  assignment  was  set  aside  and  the  fund
administered  under  the  equitable  jurisdiction  of  the
court.
Error.
BIN(4HAM  SCHOOL  v.  P.  L.   GRAY  et  al.
(Decided  May  17,  1898).
Injunction — Family  or  Sttr-Napnes — Trade  Name — Oood

Will — Incorporation — School,

1.  As  a  nile,  a  trade  mark  cannot  be  taken  in  a  eur-nanie  and  any  one
having  the  same  sur-name  as  that  under  which  a  business  has
been  long  and  successfully  conducted  by  another,so  as  to  acquire  a
reputation  therefor,  can  conduct  a  like  business  under  the  same
name,  provided  tliere  be  no  intent  to  injure  or  fraudulently  at-
tract the  benefit  of  the  good  name  and  reputation  previously
acquired  by  the  other.
700  IN  THE  SUPREME  COURT.  [122

BiNOHAM  School  v.  Gray.
