Page:Houghton Mifflin v. Stackpole Sons (40 F.Supp. 975).pdf/1

Rh Western R. Co. v. H. W. Nelson Co., 6 Cir., 116 F.2d 823, rehearing denied, 6 Cir., 118 F.2d 252. In the last named case, the Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, cited with approval, the Michigan decision, supra.

It is significant that in all of the rulings of the Comptroller-General, to which the Court has been referred by the Government in support of its theory of damages, there is not a single court citation in support of that theory. We may assume that the Comptroller-General’s Office has for some time adopted this theory of damages and that it has been accepted by some contractors, but such a practice can obviously not be considered as controlling upon some other contractor, who sees fit to litigate the point and to have his particular rights determined by the judicial process.

For the reasons given, judgment will be entered for the plaintiff for the sum named, without interest.

Civil action under Copyright Laws § 1 et seq., 17 U.S.C.A. § 1 et seq., by Houghton Mifflin Company against Stackpole Sone, Inc., and another for infringement of a copyright. During the trial, defendants made motions that certain evidence be stricken out and to dismiss the complaint, and the District Court withheld decision on such motions.

Motions overruled and judgment in accordance with opinion.

Hines, Rearick, Dorr & Hammond, of New York City (Archie O. Dawson and John D. Mooney, both of New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff.

Philip Wittenberg, of New York City, for defendants.

NEVIN, District Judge (sitting by designation).

This is an action under the Copyright Laws of the United States, Title 17, U.S.C.A., § 1 et seq. Plaintiff alleges that it is the proprietor in the United States of the copyright to the literary composition entitled “Mein Kampf” by AdolphAdolf [sic] Hitler and that such copyright has been infringed by defendants. The action was commenced on January 28, 1939. The facts are stated in detail in decisions (to which reference is hereafter made) in this case, previously reported. It is unnecessary, therefore, to repeat them here.

On February 15, 1939, plaintiff moved for a preliminary injunction. On February 28, 1939, that motion was denied by the District Court. Plaintiff appealed to the Circuit Court of Appeals which reversed