Morrison v. Pettibone
| Decision Date | 13 May 1897 |
| Citation | 87 F. 330 |
| Parties | MORRISON v. PETTIBONE et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
Felsenthal & D'Ancona, for plaintiff.
Osborne Bros., for defendants.
On the pleadings and matters conceded at the trial, it appeared to me that two questions only were presented in this case, both involving the construction to be placed upon the statute (1) Whether replevin is the proper remedy to enforce the forfeiture of infringing plates and sheets found in the possession of the defendants, as declared by section 4965 relating to copyrights; and (2) whether sheets containing the first or outline impression only, and not completed as a copy, were within the provision shall be copied and every sheet thereof either copied or printed.' 26 Stat. 1109; 28 Stat. 965.
At the trial no precedent was called to may attention for or against either of the above propositions, aside from the statement in a text-book that replevin or trover was the proper remedy for which, according to may recollection, English cases were cited. Upon first impressions, that the sheets in controversy were within the terms of the statute, which forfeits copies of the production 'either in whole or in part,' notwithstanding the fact that the work was only partially completed, it seemed to me advisable to direct a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, the facts being undisputed. On this motion for a new trial counsel for the defendants urges other objections as well, but, as I am of opinion that the answer to at least one of the questions above stated must be fatal to the direction of verdict, the further suggestion of counsel have not been considered.
1. I was inclined to the view at the outset of this inquiry that the action could not be maintained within the doctrine applicable to replevin, for the reason that the sole foundation was a statutory forfeiture. Section 4965 distinctly provides that the offender 'shall forfeit to the proprietor all the plates' and sheets constituting the infringement, and it would seem to require direct adjudication of forfeiture before the property right is perfected, under the general rule respecting forfeitures that they do not operate ipso facto to vest property in the beneficiary. Bac. Abr. 'Forfeiture,' D; Fire Department v. Kip, 10 Wend. 266. And the intimation that the statute intends a 'remedy by condemnation and forfeiture' clearly appears in the opinion of Judge Wallace, speaking for the circuit court of appeals for the Second circuit, in Bolles v. Outing Co., 23 C.C.A 594, 77 F. 966, 968. It is questionable, however, whether the peculiar language of the English act (referred to in Stevens v. Gladding, 17 How. 447, and Stevens v. Cady, 2 Curt. 200, Fed. Cas. No. 13,395) furnishes ground for any distinction of its provisions in this regard from the effect of the congressional enactment. On the other hand, it is expressly stated in Stevens v. Cady, supra, in reference to the statute in question, that 'the proprietor of the copyright is left by the act to his remedies at law, by trover or replevin,' and, as the opinion is by Mr. Justice Curtis, it is entitled to great weight. Remark is made in Thornton v. Schreiber, 124 U.S. 612, 620, 8 Sup.Ct. 618, which may intend the same view, although stated arguendo, and so qualified that it may not be applicable. Therefore I conclude, for the purposes of this motion, at least, that any doubt as to the proper remedy may well be resolved in favor of this form of action, and that such ruling may be based upon the hypothesis that the term 'forfeit,' as used in the statute, is not to be taken in its strict ordinary sense; that the act of congress, clearly intending to give to the proprietor an exclusive right of property in that which has been produced by his mind and skill, confers as well an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Duchess Music Corporation v. Stern
...1st Sess., (March, 1908), pp. 37, 123, and 139. This was not the judicial practice before the Copyright Act, e. g., Morrison v. Pettibone, 87 F. 330 (N.D. Ill. 1897). However, the 1909 statute was a thorough revision of American copyright law, and the legislative hearings demonstrate that C......
-
Chappell & Co. v. Costa
...not enter into consideration upon the issue of infringement. See Altman v. New Haven Union Co., D.C., 254 F. 113, 119; Morrison v. Pettibone, C.C., 87 F. 330, 332. It appears that in England ignorance of plaintiff's copyright is not an excuse for its infringement and that it is only by reas......
-
Falk v. Curtis Pub Co.
...C.C.A. 224, 59 F. 707; Wheeler v. Cobbey (C.C.) 70 F. 487; Bolles v. Outing Co., 45 U.S. App. 449, 23 C.C.A. 594, 77 F. 966; Morrison v. Pettibone (C.C.) 87 F. 330; v. Klopsch (C.C.) 88 F. 692; Howell v. Miller, 33 C.C.A. 407, 91 F. 129. Taft v. Engraving Co. (C.C.) 37 F. 726, was a qui tam......
-
Altman v. New Haven Union Co.
...held that ignorance of a copyright, or honest intention, affords no defense to an action for infringement. In Morrison v. Pettibone (C.C.) 87 F. 330, at page 332, the court 'The authorities are clear that the question of knowledge or intent does not enter into consideration upon the issue o......