Moore v. Rugg

• Decision Date: 01 July 1890
• Citation: 46 N.W. 141,44 Minn. 28
• Parties: MOORE v RUGG.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

44 Minn. 28

46 N.W. 141

MOOREvRUGG.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

July 1, 1890.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. There is an implied contract between a photographer and his customer that the negative for which the customer sits shall only be used for the printing of such photographic portraits as the customer may order or authorize.

2. The complaint herein states a good cause of action.

Appeal from district court, Hennepin county; REA, Judge.

J. L. Dobbin, for appellant.

Lane & Johnson, for respondent.

COLLINS, J.

The complaint in this action is not a model, as is admitted by the attorney who drew it, but it appears therefrom that defendant, a photographer, had been employed to make, and had made and sold to plaintiff, a number of photographic portraits of herself; and that subsequently, without the order or consent of plaintiff, he made and delivered to a detective another of these photographs, who used it in a manner particularly stated in the pleading, and claimed to have been highly improper. In justice to defendant, it is right that we should here remark that it is nowhere averred in the complaint that the occupation of the detective was known to him, or that he knew that the photograph so delivered was to be used in the manner stated in the complaint, or in any other improper way. This action was brought to recover damages, and this appeal is from an order...