Hoyt v. Mackenzie
New York Court of Chancery
This was an appeal from an order of the vice chancellor of the first circuit, denying the application of W. Taylor, one of the defendants in this cause, to dissolve an injunction.
Read the full summary
This was an appeal from an order of the vice chancellor of the first circuit, denying the application of W. Taylor, one of the defendants in this cause, to dissolve an injunction. The bill staled, among other things, that the complainant, in May, 1844, was in possession of, as his own property, certain letters composed by him and addressed to other persons named in the bill, copies of which letters were contained in a printed pamphlet annexed to the bill as a schedule; that at the same time he was in possession of other letters addressed to him in the way of private correspondence, by certain…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor., I have, no .doubt ttiat by the principios if the common law. the. author of „or bqok. or other literary, production, whether in the shape, of letters or otherwise,.has. a, right *323of property therein; at least until it has.been published with, his assent. The case of Webb v. Rose, decided by Sir Peter Jekyll in 1732, where the clerk of a deceased conveyancer was restrained from printing the decedent’s drafts, was based upon that principle. This was followed by the decision of Lord Hardwicke, in the case of Pope v. Curl, (2 Atk. Rep. 342,) in 1741, where the defendant was…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Wetmore v. ScovellNew York Court of Chancery · 1842
3Cited by5 opinions
- Baker v. LibbieMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1912
- Eyre v. HigbeeNew York Supreme Court · 1861
- Rick v. WilliamsU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Wisconsin · 1887
- Roberson v. Rochester Folding Box Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1901
- Jordan v. O'ConnorThe Superior Court of New York City · 1891