Baker v. Libbie
| Citation | 97 N.E. 109,210 Mass. 599 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
| Decision Date | 03 January 1912 |
| Parties | BAKER v. LIBBIE et al. |
BAKER
v.
LIBBIE et al.
Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.
Jan. 3, 1912.
Case Reserved from Superior Court, Suffolk County; James B. Richardson, Judge.
Suit by Henry M. Baker, executor of Mary Baker G. Eddy, deceased, against Charles F. Libbie and another. On the case coming on for hearing for a final decree, the justice of the superior court reserved and reported the case for consideration of the Supreme Judicial Court. Decree for complainant ordered.
[210 Mass. 600]Elder, Whitman & Barnum and Wm. A. Morse, for complainant.
Wm. M. Prest and Frank B. Livingstone, for defendant.
RUGG, C. J.
The plaintiff, as executor of the will of Mary Baker G. Eddy, the founder of ‘Christian Science’ so called, seeks to restrain an auctioneer of manuscripts from publishing for advertising purposes and from selling certain autograph letters of his testatrix. These letters were written in her own hand by Mrs. Eddy, as is said, ‘during one of the most interesting periods of her career, that is, just after the publication of her Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures,’ in 1875. It is averred in the answer that the letters have no attribute of literature, but are merely friendly letters written to a cousin about domestic and business affairs. Extracts from the letters show that they refer to household matters, to health and to the work she was doing. The questions raised relate to the existence, extent and character of the proprietary right of the writer of private letters upon indifferent subjects not possessing the qualities of literature and to the degree of protection to be given in equity to such rights as are found to exist. These points have never been presented before for decision in this commonwealth. The nearest approach was in Tompkins v. Halleck, 133 Mass. 32, 43 Am. Rep. 480, where the rights of an author of a dramatic composition put upon the stage but not printed were protected against a rival presentation made possible by human memory (overruling upon this point the earlier case of Keene v. Kimball, 16 Gray, 545, 77 Am. Dec. 426), and Dodge Co. v. Construction Information Co., 183 Mass. 62, 66 N. E. 204,60 L. R. A. 810, 97 Am. St. Rep. 412, where property rights in valuable commercial information[210 Mass. 601]distributed to subscribers in writing, in print, by telegraph or orally, were recognized and protected against use by a rival concern. Neither of these decisions touch at all closely the points involved in the case at bar.
[1] The rights of the authors of letters of a private or business nature have been the subject of judicial determination in courts in England and this country for a period of at least 170 years. The first English case was Pope v. Curl, 2 Atk. 341, which was in 1741. It was a suit by Alexander Pope to restrain the publication of letters written by him to Swift and others. In continuing an injunction Lord Chancellor Hardwicke, after remarking that no distinction could be drawn between letters and books or other learned works, said: ‘Another objection has been made * * * that where a man writes a letter, it is in the nature of a gift to the receiver. But I am of opinion that it is only a special property in the receiver, possibly the property of the paper may belong to him; but this does not give a license to any person whatsoever to publish them to the world, for at most the receiver has only a joint property with the writer. * * * It has been insisted * * * that this is a sort of work which
[97 N.E. 110]
does not come within the meaning of the act of Parliament [as to copyright] because it contains only letters on familiar subjects and inquiries after the health of friends and cannot properly be called a learned work. It is certain that no works have done more service to mankind, than those which have appeared in this shape, upon familiar subjects and which perhaps were never intended to be published; and it is this makes them so valuable.’
Thompson v. Stanhope, 2 Ambler, 737 (1774), was a suit by the executors of Lord Chesterfield to restrain the publication of his now famous letters to his son, which the widow of the latter proposed to print and sell. Some of these possessed literary merit of a high orde. Lord Chancellor Apsley was ‘very clear’ that an injunction should be granted, upon the authority of the foregoing decision and the somewhat...
To continue reading
Request your trial