Bristol v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of United States

• Decision Date: 22 March 1892
• Citation: 132 N.Y. 264,30 N.E. 506
• Parties: BRISTOL v. EQUITABLE LIFE ASSUR. SOC. OF UNITED STATES.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

132 N.Y. 264

30 N.E. 506

BRISTOL

v.EQUITABLE LIFE ASSUR. SOC. OF UNITED STATES.

Court of Appeals of New York,

Second Division.

March 22, 1892.

Appeal from supreme court, general term, first department.

Action by John I. D. Bristol against the Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States to recover for the use of a system of advertising. The judgment of the special term, dismissing the complaint, was affirmed by the general term. Plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.R. J. Moses, Jr.

, for appellant.

Charles B. Alexander, for respondent.

LANDON, J.

Assuming, without deciding, that if the defendant has wrongfully appropriated or converted to its own use the plaintiff's property, or infringed upon his property rights or privileges, and has without right made use of them, it ought to respond to the plaintiff for such use, and should renderan account to him respecting the same, the question arises upon this complaint whether the subject of the appropriation and use constituted property or property rights of the plaintiff. The plaintiff does not allege that he was the exclusive possessor of the system. His letter to the defendant instances several companies which have used it to advantage, and states that ‘underlying the whole system is a common-sense plan of advertising.’ Its use seems to be its disclosure. He does not complain of the use that the defendant has made of it, but seeks to recover for it, as if defendant had used his property. His case is unlike those in which the injunctive process of the court is sought to restrain the disclosure of a secret or the publication of a letter which may prove injurious to business or character. Nor is his case like that of one who writes a tale or treatise or play, or composes a piece of music, or paints a picture, or makes an invention. In such cases there is a production which can by multiplying copies be put to marketable use, and its exclusive ownership be easily preserved and protected. Whoever infringes takes benefits or profits which otherwise would naturally come to the producer. Here the defendant has taken from the plaintiff no profits, nor diverted them from him. Without denying that there may be property in an idea or trade secret or system, it is obvious that its originator or proprietor must himself protect it from escape or disclosure. If it cannot be sold or negotiated or used without a disclosure, it would seem proper that some contract should guard or regulate the disclosure; otherwise, it must follow the law of ideas, and become the acquisition of whoever receives it. Peabody v. Norfolk, 98 Mass....