Legal Opinion
Falk v. Curtis Pub. Co.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Decided February 20, 1901No. 33PublishedCited by 4 opinions
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
1Opinion of the Court
BUFFINGTON, District Judge.
In the court below, Benjamin F. Falk, the plaintiff in error, brought an action of assumpsit against the Curtis Publishing Company to recover the statutory penalty forfeited to him under the provisions of section 4965 of the Revised Statutes, as amended by the act of 1895 (2 Supp. Rev. St. p. 487), by reason of the possession of copies of a copyrighted photograph. On the trial a verdict was rendered in his favor for $8,000, subject to the following reservation of law:
“Upon the 29th day of September one copy of the October number [of the infringing' magazine] was…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- United States v. Jung Ah LungSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Bolles v. Outing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1899
- Bolles v. Outing Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1897
- The StrathairlySupreme Court of the United States · 1888
3Cited by4 opinions
- Child v. New York Times Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1901
- Gustin v. Record Pub. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania · 1904
- Hills & Co. v. HooverCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1914
- Stern v. RemickU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1908