Page:Federal Cases, Volume 15.djvu/29

 £15 Fed. Cas. page 25] England,— one of them in 1845, by Cottingham, Brougliam, and Campbell,— and one by the supreme court of the United States. The weight of authority is decidedly against the principle embodied in the present motion. The court can, therefore, consult the spirit and policy of the statute of this state, without violating any of the rules of chancery proceed- ings. The remaining question is, does this case present such equitable claim as to call for the interposition of this court? In England, com- mon injunctions are those which issue of course. The special, are issued only on due notice, and founded on the circumstances of each case as they arise. 3 Daniell, Ch. Prac. 1810. The distinction between them does not exist in the federal courts. In England, the injunction only operates upon the judgment and execution, consequently if a party seeks to stay proceedings at common law before trial, he must make special application on previous notice. The form of a writ of injunction in England always included a provision that the party at law might proceed to judgment and execution. In this country, on every applica- tion for an injunction the court has to decide whether the injunction shall issue, and to what extent In the case at bar, complain- ants allege they are tenants in fee as tenants in common with the heirs of Stephen Smith, and are in possession of the land; that the defendants have instituted an action at law to eject them from the possession, upon a doc- umentary title they allege to be fraudulent for causes of which they can only avail them- selves in a court of equity. Now, all these allegations, until denied, must on this motion be considered as true. They certainly consti- tute a case which entitles the complainants to the equitable interposition of the coxirt. An injunction must therefore be issued in accord- ance with the prayer of the bill. LAWRENCE (BRISSAG v.). See Case No. 1,- 888. LAWRENCE (CLARK v.). See Case No. 2,- 827. LAWRENCE (COGGILL v.). See Case No. 2.957. LAWRENCE (CORNETT v.). See Case No. 3,241. Case Wo. 8,135. LAWRENCE v. GUPPLES et al. [9 O. G. 254.] Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts. Oct., 1875. COPrBIGHT— G-ElfEKAL PLAN AND ARRANGEMENT — AcoiDESTAL Resemblances. In an action for infringement of a copyright, the question to be decided is whether the defend- ants have used the plan, arrangements, and illus- trations of the complainant as the model of their own book, witlx colorable alterations and varia- tions only to disguise the use thereof, or wlieth- er the work is tbe result of their own labor, skill, and use of common materials and common sources (Case No. 8,135) LAWRENCE of knowledge, and the resemblances are either ac- cidental or arising from the nature of the subject. [Cited in BuUinger v. Mackey, Case. No. 2,127.] [This was a bill in equity by Samuel E. Lawrence against Joseph E. Cupples and others, for the infringement of a copyright.] G. D. Moore, for complainant. O. S. Knapp and C. J. Brooks, for defend- ants. SHBPLEY, Circuit Judge. Complainant is the publisher of a book called "The Adver- tiser and Collector's Chart," which he has duly copyrighted in accordance with the pro- visions of the act of congress [16 Stat 212], and which he has the exclusive right of pub- lishing. The publication is a monthly chart, published each month for the purpose of ad- vertising generally, and also contains, in a tabular form, a list of debtors whose bills cannot be collected after due effort, alpha- betically arranged, giving the names and ad- dress of the debtor and creditor, the amount of the claim, and in some instances the dis- count at which the claim will be sold for cash. The bill of complaint alleges that the defendants have published a book entitled "The New England Mercantile Guide," which is a copy of and from the tabular list above described, and prepared by Samuel E. Law- rence the complainant, and that it adopts the plan of Lawrence's work in arranging the names and residences of debtors and creditors, and in stating the amounts, and in the objects and purposes of said arrange- ment The answer' denies that the book published by the defendants is a copy, in whole or in part, of "The Advertiser and Collector's Chart," and denies that the com- plainant can have any valid copyright for any arrangement of the names of debtors and creditors, or any other classes of persons, or for stating amounts, or any other purposes of ari-angement. The publication of the com- plainant is clearly one of that class embra- cing dictionaries, directories, catalogues, maps, and similar publications where the same sources of information being open to all, the author, by his copyright, only pro- tects himself from a piracy of his own labors by a copy from his publication, but can- not- exclude others from publishing similar maps or charts from their own surveys, or similar directories or catalogues, the result of their own labors and compilations, with- out copying the copyrighted publication or availing themselves of the labors of the au- thor or compiler. Although the plan or ar- rangement of a book may be secured to the author if it be the product of his own gen- ius, there does not seem in this case to be anything in a mere list of debtors and cred- itors, with their residences, and amounts and value, of debts, which possesses any such novelty of plan or arrangement as would preclude any other person from mak- ing and publishing from his own independ- dent sources of information similar lists.