Schuyler v. Curtis

• Decision Date: 26 November 1895
• Citation: 147 N.Y. 434,42 N.E. 22
• Parties: SCHUYLER v. CURTIS et al.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

147 N.Y. 434

42 N.E. 22

SCHUYLER

v.CURTIS et al.¹

Court of Appeals of New York.

Nov. 26, 1895.

Appeal from supreme court, general term, First department.

Action by Philip Schuyler against Ernest Curtis and others to restrain defendants from making and exhibiting a statue of Mrs. George L. Schuyler, deceased. From a judgment of the general term (24 N. Y. Supp. 512) affirming a judgment for plaintiff (24 N. Y. Supp. 509), defendants appeal. Reversed.

The plaintiff brought this action against the defendants to restrain them from making a statue or bust of the late Mrs. Mary M. Hamilton Schuyler, in any form, and from causing the same to be made or exhibited; also from receiving or soliciting subscriptions for the purpose of defraying the cost and expenses of making such bust, or procuring it to be made, and also to restrain them from making use of the name of Mrs. Mary M. Hamilton Schuyler, or circulating any description of her, in any way, in connection with the ‘Woman's Memorial Fund Association’ mentioned in the record. The findings of the court upon the trial of the action state what is material as to the facts upon which the action is based, while the conclusions of law show the theory upon which relief has been granted. The court has found, among other facts, the following: The plaintiff is the only son of George L. Schuyler, late of the city of New York, and of Eliza Hamilton Schuyler, his wife, who was a daughter of the late James A. Hamilton and granddaughter of Maj. Gen. Alexander Hamilton. Mrs. Schuyler died in the year 1863, and plaintiff's father, for his second wife, married Mary Morris Hamilton, a younger sister of his first wife. The second Mrs. Schuyler died in May, 1877, leaving no children. Her husband died in July, 1890, and her only brother died in December, 1889. The only immediate relatives, now living, of the second Mrs. Schuyler, are certain nephews and nieces, an uncle and an aunt, all of whom approve of the commencement and maintenance of this action. The defendants other than Hartley are members of a voluntary and unincorporated association in New York City named the ‘Woman's Memorial Fund,’ and its avowed object was the completion of two sculptures to honor ‘woman as the philanthropist’ and ‘woman as the reformer,’ to be placed on exhibition at the Columbian Exposition of 1893. This association in May, 1891, publicly announced that, ‘as the typical philanthropist, Mary M. Hamilton, who died Mrs. G. L. Schuyler, has been chosen as the subject of the statue’; and about that time the association began to send printed circulars to that effect, and to solicit subscriptions for the purpose of carrying out this project, and public announcement was made that a contract had been entered into with the defendant Hartley, a professional sculptor, for the execution of a statue of Mrs. Schuyler, to be placed on exhibition as stated. It was also announced that the association intended to place the statue on exhibition at the same time and place as a statue of Miss Susan B. Anthony, whom the association had chosen as the subject of the statue to be designated the ‘Representative Reformer.’ George L. Schuyler, the husband, and Alexander Hamilton, the brother, of the deceased Mrs. Schuyler, were, at the time when the association claims to have originated the plan for making the statue, living in New York; but no application was made to either for his consent to the making of the statue, and neither of them ever authorized any one to make it. Subsequent to the deaths of the husband and brother of Mrs. Schuyler, and in May, 1891, the plaintiff first heard of the contemplated action of the defendants, and he, in behalf of himself, and also of the other relatives of Mrs. Schuyler, requested the defendants to abandon the making of such statue and the circulation of subscription papers for the purpose of collecting money towards defraying the cost and expenses of procuring the statue. The defendants denied the right of the plaintiff to prevent the making of the statue, or to prevent their soliciting subscriptions throughout the country for that purpose, and they continued to circulate such subscription papers widely throughout the United States, and they were printed in some of the New York City newspapers at the instance of the defendants. These acts, the court finds, have exposed the name and the memory of Mrs. Mary M. Hamilton Schuyler to adverse comment and criticism of a nature peculiarly disagreeable to her relatives, and have caused disagreeable notoriety, for which they are in no way responsible; that such comment has been made in the public prints and elsewhere; that annoyance and pain have been caused thereby to the plaintiff and to the immediate relatives of Mrs. Schuyler; that he and they have been greatly distressed and injured thereby, and by the notoriety incident thereto; and that such notoriety and adverse comment and criticism are wholly due to the unauthorized acts of the defendants. As conclusions of law, it was found that the acts of defendants constituted an unlawful interference with the right of privacy, and that the surviving relatives of the deceased, Mary Schuyler, were specially injured by the acts. It was therefore adjudged that the plaintiff was entitled to judgment perpetually enjoining the defendants from making or causing to be made a statue of Mrs. Schuyler, in any form, and from exhibiting any statue of her, and from receiving subscriptions for the purposes stated. Upon the trial evidence was given upon the part of the defendants which showed that Mrs. Schuyler, in her lifetime, was a very charitable woman; was a member of many private charitable associations; that in 1852 she was one of the founders of the School of Design for Women in the city of New York, and one of its managers until it was adopted by the Cooper Institute; that some of the female defendants were members of the School of Design for Women, and had frequently met Mrs. Schuyler at its meetings, and were on terms of some intimacy with her, so far, at least, as her interest in and her attendance at the meetings of the above association called for; that the Ladies' Art Association was founded about 1867, partly at the suggestion of Mrs. Schuyler, made to some of the defendants, who were members of the School of Design for Women, the object of the association being to help ladies support themselves, and to give them adequate education in art and design, and the association is a reputable and wellknown organization in New York City, and Mrs. Schuyler evinced considerable interest in it during her life; that the Woman's Memorial Fund Association was composed largely of members of the Ladies' Art Association, and it was publicly announced that the statue in question was to be placed, after the exposition, in the rooms or studio of the association, there to remain permanently; that Mrs. Schuyler was prominently identified with the United States sanitary commission during the late war; and also that she was one of the vice regents for the state of New York of the Mt. Vernon Association, which was organized for the purpose of securing the preservation of the home of Washington. These several facts were proved and were uncontradicted, and the defendants requested the court to find them, which request was refused on the ground that they were immaterial.

Gray, J., dissenting. 24 N. Y. Supp. 512 , mem., reversed.

Charles M. Demond, for appellants.

James B. Ludlow, for respondent.

PECKHAM, J. (after stating the facts).

This action is of a nature somewhat unusual, and depends for its support upon an application of certain principles, which are themselves not very clearly defined, or their boundaries very well recognized or plainly laid down. Briefly described, the action is founded upon an alleged violation of what is termed the ‘right of privacy.’ The alleged violation of this right, so far as regards the plaintiff, consists of an attempt on the part of certain reputable women,-among them, the female defendants herein,-without the sanction of the plaintiff or other immediate members of the family, to do honor to the memory of a woman who was the aunt of the plaintiff, and who, at the time of the commencement of this action, had been dead for 14 years. A statue of a most costly and meritorious kind, to be made out of appropriate material and by an artist of the first rank, was contemplatedas the means of doing this honor to the memory of the deceased relative of the plaintiff. It may, perhaps, be somewhat difficult for the ordinary mind to perceive any reason for the plaintiff's distress arising out of this contemplated action by women of respectability, who are desirous of honoring the memory of a woman whom they regarded in life as a friend and benefactor of their sex. Objection has, however, been made to the carrying out of this project, and we must examine this record in order to see whether there is any evidence of a violation of this alleged right of privacy belonging to the plaintiff. In order to determine whether there has been a violation of the right, it is necessary to know something about the right itself and its proper limitations. It is not necessary, however, in the view which we take of this case, to attempt to lay down precise and accurate rules, which shall apply to all cases touching upon this alleged right. If the facts in any case fail to furnish any clear or sure foundation for a reasonable man to claim that any injury to his feelings has been or would be caused by the action taken or to be taken by a defendant, then we can at least say, in such a case, that there has not been and cannot be any such real mental distress or injury as a court of equity ought to recognize as within judicial relief. For the purpose we have in view, it is unnecessary to wholly deny the existence of the right of privacy to which the plaintiff appeals as the foundation of his cause of action. It may...