sale. The debtor's ownership is not divested by a levy, and the sheriff merely has the custody. Banker v. Caldwell, 3 Minn. 94.

The protection afforded by the common law to literary labor is accorded to alien friend and citizen alike. Palmer v. De Witt, 47 N. Y. 532; s. c. 36 How. Pr. 222; s. c. 40 How. Pr. 293; s. c. 5 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 130; s. c. 2 Sweeny 530.

Dramatic Compositions.

A manuscript of a dramatic composition is equally under the protection of the law with any other work. Keene v. Kimball, 82 Mass. 545; s. c. 23 Law Rep. 669.

The rights of an author of a drama in his composition are twofold. He is entitled to the profit arising from its performance, and also from the х sale of the manuscript or the printing and publishing it. Palmer v. De Witt, 47 N. Y. 532; so. 36 How. Pr. 222; s. c. 40 How. Pr. 293; 8. 0. 5 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 130; s. c. 2 Sweeny 530.

The permission to act a play at a public theatre does not amount to an abandonment by an author of his title to it, or to a dedication of it to the public. Palmer v. De Witt, 47 N. Y. 532; s. c. 36 How. Pr. 222; s. O 40 How. Pr. 293; s. c. 5 Abb. Pr. (N. 8.) 130; s. c. 2 Sweeny 530.

The performance of a play in public, with the consent of the author, for a compensation, is no evidence of his abandonment of the manuscript to the public. Boucicault v. Fox, 5 Blatch. 87; contra, Keene v. Kimball, 82 Mass. 545; 23 Law Rep. 339.

A performance of a play at a theatre is a general publication. Keene v. Wheatley, 4 Phila. 157; 6. o. 9 A. L. Reg. 331,

If a general publication of a play does not enable others to represent it through a retention of the words in their memory, the author's proprietorship continues. Keene v. Wheatley, 4 Phila. 157; er 9 Ar L. Reg. 831 ; Boucicault v. Wood, 2 Biss. 34; s. c. 16 A. L. Reg. 589; Roberts v. Myers, 23 Law Rep. 396; s. c. 17 Leg. Int. 405; Keene v. Clarke, 5 Robt. 1 38; Crowe v. Aiken, 2 Biss. 208; s. c. 4 A. L. Rev. 450; vide Keene v. Kimball, 82 Mass. 545; s. o. 23 Law Rep. 339, 601 M

5 pide

133 hus! If a play is represented in public, and a spectator retains it by memory alone and publishes it, the exclusive right is gone. Palmer v. De Witt, 5 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 130; s. c. 36 How. Pr. 222; s. c. 40 How. Pr. 293; s. c. 2 Sweeny 530; s. c. 47 N. Y. 532; contra, Tompkins v. Halleck, 133 Mass. 32.

The evidence must clearly establish the fact that the copy of the play was produced from memory, and negative any other conclusion. Crowe v. Aiken, 2 Biss. 208; s. c. 4 A. L. Rev. 450.

A spectator of a play has no right to cause its reproduction by phonographic or other verbatim reports, independent of memory. Keene v. Clarke, 5 Robt. 38; Crowe v. Aiken, 2 Biss. 208; s. c. 4 A. L. Rev. 450. An intent to abandon a dramatic composition to the public is inferable from frequent and continued representations for a long time and at differ

1

나

?

ent places. Keene v. Clarke, 5 Robt. 38; Keene v. Kimball, 82 Mass. 545; s. c. 23 Law Rep. 339.

A play once published by its author may be represented on the stage by any person without infringement upon the author's right. Keene v. Kimball, 82 Mass. 545; s. c. 23 Law Rep. 339.

The publication of the piano score of an opera is not such a publication of the opera as will give another the right to use the unpublished libretto of the opera or the unpublished operatic score. Goldmark v. Collmer, 15 C. L. N. 67.

Although the piano score of an opera has been published, yet this does not give another the right to use it as a basis for composing an orchestra score and a libretto, and thus put the opera on the stage. Goldmark v. Collmer, 15 C. L. N. 67.

If the airs and harmonies of an opera are published with a piano accompaniment, a person who performs the opera with an orchestration prepared by another does not infringe the rights of the author. Carte v. Ford, 15 Fed. Rep. 439; contra, Thomas v. Lennon, 14 Fed. Rep. 849.

Letters.

The author of any letter, whether it is a literary composition, or a familiar letter, or a letter of business, possesses the sole and exclusive copyright therein. Folsom v. Marsh, 2 Story 100; Woolsey v. Judd, 4 Duer 379; Grigsby v. Breckenridge, 2 Bush 480; Denis v. Leclerc, 1 Orleans T. R. 297; contra, Wetmore v. Scovill, 3 Edw. Ch. 515; Hoyt v. Mackenzie, 3 Barb. Ch. 320.

By sending a letter the author parts with his right to the possession, control, or reclamation thereof without the consent of the receiver, and gives the latter the exclusive right to read and keep it. Grigsby v. Breckenridge, 2 Bush 480.

The author has a right to publish the letter, if he keeps or can procure a copy; but the recipient is not bound to keep the original for his transcription, inspection, or other use. Grigsby v. Breckenridge, 2 Bush 480.

The possession of a letter addressed to the Christian name of the possessor is prima facie evidence of title and ownership. Tefft v. Marsh, 1 W. Va. 38.

The recipient of a letter has a right to keep it, or destroy it, or dispose of it in any other way than by publication. Grigsby v. Breckenridge, 2 Bush 480.

The recipient may read a letter to a friend, or deposit it for safekeeping, without violating the author's right of publication. Grigsby v. Breckenridge, 2 Bush 480.

A person to whom a letter is addressed has no right to publish it, except to protect or vindicate himself. Folsom v. Marsh, 2 Story 100.

The government has the right to give publicity to letters addressed to any of the departments by a public officer, even against the will of the writer. Folsom v. Marsh, 2 Story 100.

A feme covert has the right, as between herself and her husband, to keep and dispose of a confidential letter addressed to her, and not affecting his rights, regardless of his will, whether received before or after marriage. Grigsby v. Breckenridge, 2 Bush 480.

A feme covert, when she is about to die, may give and deliver a letter addressed to her by another, and after such alienation the letter will not constitute any portion of her estate which can pass to her executor or administrator. Grigsby v. Breckenbridge, 2 Bush 480.

Although letters pass to an executor or administrator, yet they are not assets in his hands which may be sold to pay debts, but come to his possession solely for the purpose of being transferred to the widow or next of kin. Eyre v. Higbee, 22 How. Pr. 198; s. c. 35 Barb. 502.

SEC. 4968. No action shall be maintained in any case of forfeiture or penalty under the copyright laws, unless the same is commenced within two years after the cause of action has arisen.

Statute Revised-July 8, 1870, ch. 230, 104, 16 Stat. 215.

Prior Statutes-May 31, 1790, ch. 15, § 2, 1 Stat. 124.-April 29, 1802, ch. 36, § 4, 2 Stat. 172.-February 3, 1831, ch. 16, § 13, 4 Stat. 439.

Although the plates were engraved more than two years before the institution of the suit, yet every printing for sale is a new infraction of the right, and if such printing was within two years before the suit was brought, the defendant is liable. Reed v. Carusi, Taney 72.

SEC. 4969. In all actions arising under the laws respecting copyrights, the defendant may plead the general issue, and give the special matter in evidence.

Statute Revised-July 8, 1870, ch. 230, ? 105, 16 Stat. 215.

Prior Statutes-May 31, 1790, ch. 15, ? 6, 1 Stat. 126.-February 3, 1831, ch. 16, 10, 4 Stat. 438.

SEC. 4970. The circuit courts, and district courts having the jurisdiction of circuit courts, shall have power, upon bill in equity, filed by any party aggrieved, to grant injunctions to prevent the violation of any right secured by the laws respecting copyrights, according to the course and principles of courts of equity, on such terms as the court may deem reasonable.

Statute Revised-July 8, 1870, ch. 230, ? 160, 16 Stat. 215.

Prior Statutes-February 15, 1819, ch. 19, ? 1, 3 Stat. 481.-February 3, 1831, ch. 16, 29, 4 Stat. 438.

Parties.

A party who has an equitable title to a copyright may maintain a bill. Little v. Gould, 2 Blatch. 165; Folsom v. Marsh, 2 Story 100; Little v. Gould, 2 Blatch. 362.

The assignee of the right to act and represent a drama within certain territory and for a limited time may maintain an action in his own name, without joining the assignor. Roberts v. Myers, 23 Law Rep. 396; s. c. 17 Leg. Int. 405.

A party who surreptitiously obtained a copy of a play can not enjoin another who fraudulently obtains a transcript of his copy. Martinetti v. Maguire, 1 Deady 216; s. c. 1 Abb. C. C. 356.

A vendor is liable for the sale of a book which invades the copyright of another. Greene v. Bishop, 1 Cliff. 186.

Pleading.

Instances of similarity or identity should be brought before the court by affidavit, and not by allegations in the bill. Farmer v. Calvert Publishing Co., 1 Flippin 228; s. c. 5 A. L. T. 168.

Inconsistent pleading is matter of form, and can be taken advantage of only by special demurrer. Atwill v. Ferrett, 2 Blatch. 39.

A special demurrer which does not point out precisely the parts of the bill intended to be embraced by it is insufficient. Atwill v. Ferrett, 2 Blatch. 39.

A general demurrer to the whole bill will be overruled if any independent part of the bill is sufficient. Atwill v. Ferrett, 2 Blatch. 39. An answer may consist in part of a demurrer and in part of a reply. Pierpont v. Fowle, 2 W. & M. 23.

One defendant can not object on the ground that his co-defendants are required to answer matters involved in a suit at law against him, especially when they reside out of the district. Atwill v. Ferrett, 2 Blatch. 39.

If an averment in the bill that the complainant is a citizen of the United States is not denied in the answer, it will be considered as admitted. Webb v. Powers, 2 W. & M. 497.

Where the answer is responsive to the bill it is conclusive, unless it is overcome by the testimony of two witnesses, or of one witness and equivalent circumstances. Emerson v. Davies, 3 Story 768.

If the complainant sets the cause down for hearing on bill and answer, everything well pleaded in the answer is thereby admitted to be true. Parton v. Prang, 2 O. G. 619; s. c. 3 Cliff. 537; s. c. 6 A. L. T. 105.

Discovery and Account.

The court may compel a party to disclose the sums received for sales of the work, and account for the same. Pierpont v. Fowle, 2 W. & M. 23.

A defendant can not be compelled to make discoveries in answer to a bill which seeks to enforce penalties and forfeitures against him by means of such discoveries. Atwill v. Ferrett, 2 Blatch. 39.

A discovery will not be decreed in aid of an action of trespass, for the complainant can not maintain such action. Atwill v. Ferrett, 2 Blatch. 39. If the defendant answers, it is too late to raise the objection that the discovery may render him liable to a penalty or forfeiture. Calvert Publishing Co., 1 Flippin 228; s. c. 5 A. L. T. 168.

Farmer v.

An injunction and an account of the profits may be awarded, although the complainant did not expressly waive the forfeiture and penalty in the bill. Farmer v. Calvert Publishing Co., 1 Flippin 228; s. c. 5 A. L. T. 168.

The right to an account is an incident of a right to an injunction, and an account may be ordered under a prayer for general relief. Stevens v. Gladding, 17 How. 447; Stevens v. Cady, 2 Curt. 200.

If there is no prayer for an account or for general relief, no decree can be made for profits. Stevens v. Cady, 2 Curt. 200.

If the infringer sold on commission, he must account for the commissions so received as profits. Stevens v. Gladding, 2 Curt. 608.

Issues.

When the rights of the parties depend on the construction of a written instrument, the court will decide the controversy, without directing an issue to be tried at law. Pierpont v. Fowle, 2 W. & M. 23.

On an issue to a jury the bill and answer can not be read in evidence by the defendant, unless it is so ordered by the court at the time of directing the issue. King v. Force, 2 Cranch C. C. 208.

Preliminary Injunction.

A motion for a preliminary injunction will be disposed of on the affidavits filed by the parties, and will not be referred to a master. Smith v. Johnson, 4 Blatch. 252.

On motion for a preliminary injunction, affidavits taken to be used in the cause may be so used, although they are not entitled in the case. Shook v. Rankin, 6 Biss. 477.

A preliminary injunction may be granted although the questions involved have never been settled by any prior adjudication. Little v. Gould, 2 Blatch. 165.

Where an infringement is palpable and a provisional injunction will not be attended with serious injury, it is not ordinarily refused as to so much of the work as is a plain infringement of the prior publication. Banks v. McDivett, 13 Blatch. 163; s. c. 8 O. G. 860.

If the questions involved are grave, they will not be determined on a motion for a preliminary injunction, but will be postponed till the final hearing. Miller v. McElroy, 2 Penn. L. J. 305; s. c. 1 A. L. Reg. 198; Myers v. Callaghan, 5 Fed. Rep. 726; s. c. 10 Biss. 139.