Banks v. Manchester

, to restrain the defendant from infringing the plaintiffs’ copyright. The defendant answered, and the complainants demurred to the answer. Decree dismissing the bill, from which plaintiffs appealed. The case is stated in the opinion of the court.

Mr. Edward L. Taylor, for appellants, cited: United States v. Hillegas’s Executors, 3 Wash. C. C. 70; Hines v. North Carolina, 10 Sm. & Marsh. 529; Mexico v. De Arangois, 5 Duer (N. Y.) 634; Wheaton v. Peters, 8 Pet. 591; Banks v. De Witt, 42 Ohio St. 264; Little v. Gould, 2 Blatchford, 362; Stationers v. Patentees about the Printing of Rolls’ Abridgment, Carter, 89; Millar v. Taylor, 4 Burrow, 2383; Basket v. University of Cambridge, 1 Wm. Bl. 105; Myers v. Callaghan, 5 Fed. Rep. 726; Gould v. Banks, 53 Conn. 415; Banks v. West Publishing Co., 27 Fed. Rep. 50.

Mr. Richard A. Harrison, for appellee, cited: United States v. Rhodes, 1 Abbott (U. S.) 28; People v. Imlay, 20 Barb. 68; Gendell v. Orr, 13 Phila. 191; Miller v. Taylor, 4 Burrow, 2383; Lindsley v. Coats, 10 Ohio, 243; King v. Beck, 15 Ohio, 559; Banks v. West Publishing Co., 27 Fed. Rep. 50; Myers v. Callaghan, 5 Fed. Rep. 726; Nash v. Lathrop, 142 Mass. 29; Atwill v. Ferrett, 2 Blatchford, 39; Connecticut v. Gould, 34 Fed. Rep. 319; Gould v. Banks, 53 Conn. 415; Davidson v. Wheelock, 27 Fed. Rep. 61; Chase v. Sanborn, 4 Cliff. 306; Myers v. Callaghan, 20 Fed. Rep. 441; Banks v. Manchester, 23 Fed. Rep. 143.