Page:Quinn-Brown Publishing v. Chilton.pdf/1

 the composition, the petition is verified upon information and belief, and, for that reason alone, the petition is insufficient and the motion to dismiss should be granted. In re Kass (D.C.) 263 F. 138; In re Vandeweghe (D.C.) 49 F.(2d) 939.

The motion to dismiss is granted, and the petition of Frederick Opolinsky & Son, Inc., is dismissed.

In Equity. Suit by the Quinn-Brown Publishing Corporation against the Chilton Company, Inc. On motion by defendant to dismiss the amended bill for insufficiency.

Motion granted, with leave to amend.

Alfred Ekelman, of New York City, for complainant.

Iselin, Riggs & Ferris, of New York City (Enos Throop Geer, of New York City, of counsel), for defendant.

PATTERSON, District Judge.

The suit is for infringement of copyright. The motion is by the defendant to dismiss the amended bill for insufficiency.

In the amended bill the plaintiff alleges that it publishes a trade magazine, “Wire and Wire Products”; that in the issue for September, 1935, it published an article written by one McCarthy, of great interest to persons in the wire industry; that this issue was duly copyrighted by the plaintiff pursuant to the Copyright Act, as amended (17 U.S.C.A. § 1 et seq.). It is alleged that the plaintiff was the proprietor of the article at the time of copyright, proprietorship having been acquired in this way: McCarthy wrote the article and read it at a convention of the Wire Association,” [sic] and complainant’s publication, being the official publication of the Wire Association, was given the exclusive right to publish Mr. McCarthy's paper.” [sic] There is also pleaded a resolution adopted by the board of directors of the Wire Association. The resolution is verbose, but its essence is that the plaintiff should have “exclusive