Lord v. Harte
| Citation | 118 Mass. 271 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
| Decision Date | 04 September 1875 |
| Parties | George W. T. Lord & others v. Bret Harte & others |
Suffolk. Bill in equity, filed September 17, 1874, under the Gen. Sts. c. 113, § 2, against Bret Harte, of Morristown, in the State of New Jersey, and the members of the firm of J. R. Osgood & Company, of Boston, alleging that in 1874 the plaintiff recovered judgment against Harte for $ 1153.76, in an action brought by them in the Superior Court of the city of New York; that the judgment was wholly unsatisfied at the filing of this bill; that Harte was an author of some reputation, and had written works in prose and poetry, which had been collected and published in several volumes, and had a large and extended sale in the United States and elsewhere; that said works have been published and sold, and are now being published and offered for sale, in many different editions, by the defendants Osgood & Co. that the plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on such information and belief aver, that the sole right to publish and sell said works belongs to the said Osgood & Co. that the copyrights thereof were taken in their name or assigned to them, by or with the consent of the said Harte in consideration of certain contracts between them, which contracts are now in existence and are substantially as follows, to wit: that in consideration of their becoming the owners of copyrights, the said Osgood & Co. shall publish and sell copies of the works, as may be advantageous, during the continuance of said copyrights, and out of such sales shall pay to Harte the sum of ten per centum upon the retail price of each book, by way of royalty or compensation, for the authorship thereof; that in said contract it is provided that an account shall be stated between said Osgood & Co. and Harte twice each year, to wit, in the months of May and November, and upon these statements the amounts found to be due Harte are then payable to him under the contracts; that since the existence of the contracts Harte has received under them each year, as royalty upon the sale of his works, a large sum of money, to wit, more than the amount of his debt to the plaintiffs; that the sale of said works continues to be large, and that the interest of the said Harte therein is likely to be valuable in the future, but that the same cannot be come at to be attached or taken on execution in a suit at law against Harte; that the amount of money due upon a proper accounting (if anything) from Osgood & Co. to Harte at the time of filing the bill, or which shall have become due at the first accounting after the service of the bill, will not be sufficient to pay the indebtedness of said Harte to the plaintiffs.
The prayer of the bill was for discovery, and that Osgood & Co. be ordered to account with the plaintiffs for such sums of money as may now be due or hereafter fall due to Harte under the contracts, until his debt to the plaintiffs, with the interest thereon and the costs of this proceeding, shall be fully paid and discharged; or that Osgood & Co. be ordered to pay the same into court, subject to the order of the court; and for further relief.
To this bill the defendants Osgood & Co. demurred, on the ground that the plaintiffs had a plain, adequate and complete remedy at law.
Upon hearing of the demurrer, Devens, J., was of opinion that the demurrer should be sustained; and, at the request of the plaintiffs, reserved the question for the consideration of the full court.
Demurrer overruled.
R. M. Morse, Jr., for the defendants.
R. D. Smith & M. M. Weston, for the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs have recovered judgment against Harte for the sum set forth in their bill, but even if they would have been entitled, if they had brought an action at law against Harte and summoned Osgood & Co. as trustees, to receive the amount which had already been earned...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bethlehem Fabricators, Inc. v. H.D. Watts Co.
...by the appellant, if not before, the appellant's rights thereunder could be reached and applied to the payment of its debts. Lord v. Harte, 118 Mass. 271. Compare Hopedale Mfg. Co. v. Clinton Cotton Mills, 224 Mass. 193, 112 N. E. 879. Moreover, a cause of action for breach of such a contra......
-
Rosenthal v. Maletz
...payments, although dependent upon an uncertain factor as to time, can be ascertained in the manner prescribed in the statute. Lord v. Harte, 118 Mass. 271;Alexander v. McPeck, 189 Mass. 34, 44, 75 N.E. 88;Lewenstein v. Forman, 223 Mass. 325, 327, 111 N.E. 962;Digney v. Blanchard, 229 Mass. ......
-
McCann v. Randall
... ... or circumstances of fraud or trust, is within the equitable ... jurisdiction, was asserted by Lord HARDWICKE, (Anon., 1 Atk ... 19; Kinaston v. Clark, 2 Atk. 205;) and either after ... judgment, or with circumstances of fraud or trust, by Lord ... Lothrop, 137 Mass. 523,) a ... mortgagee's interest, ( Moody v. Gay, 15 Gray, ... 457,) and royalty contract, ( Lord v. Harte, 118 ... Mass. 271.) The following cases would not be in point under ... the amendatory act of 1884: Insurance Co. v. Abbott, ... 127 Mass ... ...
-
McCann v. Randall
...cestui que trust, (Forbes v. Lothrop, 137 Mass. 523,) a mortgagee's interest, (Moody v. Gay, 15 Gray, 457,) and royalty contract, (Lord v. Harte, 118 Mass. 271.) The following cases would not be in point under the amendatory act of 1884: Insurance Co. v. Abbott, 127 Mass. 558;Walker v. Broo......