• ARTS | 
• BUSINESS | 
• ENTERTAINMENT | 
• GAMES | 
• HEALTH | 
• HOME | 
• KIDS | 
• NEWS | 
• POLITICS | 
• RECREATION | 
• REFERENCE | 
• REGIONAL | 
• SCIENCE | 
• SHOPPING | 
• SOCIETY | 
• SPORTS | 
• TECH

plaintiff

6

The court expressed a doubt in that case whether there could be property in lectures which had not been reduced to writing, but granted the injunction on the ground that it was a breach [***21] of confidence on the part of a pupil who was admitted to hear the lectures to publish them, inasmuch as they were delivered for the information of the pupils and not for sale and profit by them

Nov 10 '07 -Society- faculty.uml.edu -plaintiff,ground,property

2

402) B attempted to print a private letter written him by A, and he was restrained on the ground that the property of that private letter remained in A, B having it only for the qualified purpose for which it was sent to him, the basis of the decision, therefore, being the idea of plaintiff's property in the thing published, as being the product of his mind, written by him and put into the hands of B for a limited purpose only

Nov 10 '07 -Society- faculty.uml.edu -plaintiff,ground,property

2

In that case defendant, the owner of a medicine called "Sallyco," published the following substantially true but unauthorized statement about plaintiff: "Dr

Nov 10 '07 -Society- faculty.uml.edu -plaintiff,ground,property

1

The same judge, Lord Eldon, also granted the injunction in Abernathy v.Hutchinson (3 L.J.Ch

Nov 10 '07 -Society- faculty.uml.edu -plaintiff,ground,property

-1

Mayhall v.Higbey (1 H.& C.188) was also a case where an injunction was granted and nominal damages awarded on the ground that plaintiff had a property right in certain photographic negatives which he had loaned to a person who, subsequently, became insolvent and whose assignee, without right, sold them to defendant who printed copies from them which he published and sold

Nov 10 '07 -Society- faculty.uml.edu -plaintiff,ground,property

-1

In not one of these cases, therefore, was it the basis of the [*550] decision that the [***22] defendant could be restrained from performing the act he was doing or threatening to do on the ground that the feelings of the plaintiff would be thereby injured; but, on the contrary, each decision was rested either upon the ground of breach of trust or that plaintiff had a property right in the subject of litigation which the court could protect

Nov 10 '07 -Society- faculty.uml.edu -plaintiff,ground,property

-1

The case that seems to have been more relied upon than any other by the learned Appellate Division in reaching the conclusion that the complaint in this case states a cause of action, is Schuyler v.Curtis (147 N.Y.434)

Nov 10 '07 -Society- faculty.uml.edu -plaintiff,ground,property

-2

..209) restraining the publication in the "Lancet" of lectures delivered at a hospital by the plaintiff

Nov 10 '07 -Society- faculty.uml.edu -plaintiff,ground,property

-2

A more recent English case, decided in 1898, is more nearly in point and negatives the contention that plaintiff may restrain an unauthorized publication which is offensive to him -- namely, Dockrell v.Dougall (78 L.T.R...840)

Nov 10 '07 -Society- faculty.uml.edu -plaintiff,ground,property

-4

In Duke of Queensberry v.Shebbeare (2 Eden, 329) the Earl of Clarendon delivered to one Gwynne an original manuscript of his father's, "Lord Clarendon's History." Gwynne's administrator afterwards sold it to Shebbeare, and the court, upon the application of the personal representatives of Lord Clarendon, restrained its publication on the ground that they had a property right in the manuscript which it was not intended that Gwynne should have the benefit of by multiplying the number of copies in print for profit

Nov 10 '07 -Society- faculty.uml.edu -plaintiff,ground,property