Page:Copyright, Its History And Its Law (1912).djvu/477

 BUSINESS RELATIONS 445

fire were decided in the case of Blackwood v. Brew- ster, in i860, in the Scotch Court of Session, not to constitute a new edition. In the later case of Hole v. Bradbury, in 1879, a joint author and the heir of a de- ceased joint author of " A little tour in Ireland" were adjudged by Justice Fry to be entitled to resume their rights and to recover the illustrations from publish- ers who had succeeded to the business of the original publishing firm.

In Warne v. Routledge, in 1874, where Mrs. Cook Author's sought to transfer from one publisher to another with- f^^"?^®*^ out notice a book of which 44,000 copies had been publishers printed and 42,000 sold, the plaintiff publisher sought to restrain the defendant from issuing a new edition until the remaining copies had been sold. Sir George Jessel, M. R., held that the right of publishing was an exclusive one for the time of the contract, though the word exclusive was not used, but that the author could provide for publication by another publisher immediately on terminating a contract, — a decision which has been criticized as not compatible with other decisions nor sound law.

Where a proprietary name becomes identified with Proprietary a publication, an assignment of the work may estop name the person named from use of his name or advertise- ment of his service elsewhere, as in the English case of Ward v. Beeton, in 1875, where the originator of "Beeton's Christmas Annual," who had been dis- missed by the publishers of that work, was restrained from advertising that he would edit a similar publica- tion for another publisher. But the editor's name is not necessarily part of the title, and an editor may not restrain its omission from the title-page, as was held in the English case of Crookes v. Fetter, in i860.

It was decided in the English case of Howitt v. Hall, in 1862, by Vice Chancellor Fage Wood, that where a