Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/743

 MYERS V. CALIiAGHAN. 731 this volume. That was a case -wliich" ajose, like |his, tinder the act of 1831. The title of the book was deposited with the elerk in 1846, and the notice of the entry, as printed in the book, stated that it had been made in-1847, and there was evidence tending to show the plaintiffs knew of the errer before publication. That was an application foi: an injunc- tion, whioh the court ref used, holding that these' facts de, prived the plaintiffs of their copyright in the book uhder the act of eongress, notwithstanding the date may .have been a mistake. The main difference between that case -and this is that here the entry states that the title was deposited in 1866, when, in fact, it was not deposited until 1867. The mistake arose probably from the volume having been printed in 1866, and it was assumed that the certificate of the title-page was flled in the proper office that year. It niay be admitted that there is no distinction in principle between that case and this ; but it seems to be rather a hard rule to deprive a party of the product of his labor simply because a mistake of this kind has been made. The author or publisher has endeavored to comply in good faith with the provisions of the statute, but has committed an error, unintentionally, it is presumed, in stating the year. According to the imptint contained in the book in this case, the right would expire before it would ac- cording to the filing of the certificate of the title with the the proper ofi&cer; and therefore it would seem no one could be damnified by the error which was committed. In Baker T. Taylor the court held there should be an exact compliance in every particular with the provisions of the statute, and the court remarks that in Wheaton v. Peters the supreme court deeided there must be a strict compliance with the provisions of law. I do not understand that the court has laid down the rule with such unbending rigor as seems to be implied in the case cited. Undoubtedly a majority of the court in the case of Wheaton v. Petera held that the law must be com- plied with ; but they do not say that if there shall be a slip in any trifling particular, therefore the author is deprived of ail right to the product of his brain and of his hand. Con- ceding that it is a right whioh must exist under the law, the