[307] Caird v. Sime (1887), 12 A. C., 326; Nicols v. Pitman (1884), 26 Ch. D., 374; Abernethy v. Hutchinson (1825), 3 L. J. Ch., 209.
[308] 5 & 6 Will. IV. c. 65, sec. 5.
[309] Caird v. Sime (1887), 12 A. C., 326.
[310] See Millar v. Taylor (1769), 4 Burr., 2303, and cases there cited.
[311] Baskett v. University of Cambridge (1758), 2 Burr. 661; Baskett v. Cunningham (1762), Black. Rep., 370.
[312] See Grierson v. Jackson (1794), Ridg. Ir., T. R., 304; Nicol v. Stockdale (1785), 3 Swanst., 687.
[313] Universities v. Richardson (1802), 6 Ves., 689; Manners v. Blair (1828), 3 Bligh (N. S.), 391; Grierson v. Jackson (1794), Ridg. Ir., T. R., 304.
[314] Universities v. Richardson (1802), 6 Ves., 689; Eyre v. Carnan (1781), 6 Bac. Abr., 509; Manners v. Blair (1828), 3 Bligh (N. S.), 391.
[315] Baskett v. Cunningham (1762), Black. Rep., 370.
[316] See Appendix.
[317] 15 Geo. III. c. 53; 41 Geo. III. c. 107, extending the privilege to Dublin; 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, sec. 27.
[318] (1774), 2 Bro. P. C., 129.
[319] 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, sec. 3.
[320] This reservation is made necessary by the decision in Walter v. Lane [1900], A. C., 539, that the author is not necessarily the composer of the literary matter; see infra, p. 65.
[321] (1867), L. R., 3 Eq., 718; see also Nottage v. Jackson (1883), 11 Q. B. D., 627; Stannard v. Harrison (1871), 24 L. T. (N. S.), 570.
[322] (1824), 2 L. J. Ch., 90, at p. 102; and see Maclean v. Moody (1858), 20 D., 1154.
[323] (1859), 7 C. B. (N. S.), 268.
[324] 7 C. B. (N. S.), at p. 280.
[325] (1867), 16 L. T. (N. S.), 453.
[326] (1859), 7 C. B. (N. S.), 268.
[327] (1859) 7 C. B. (N. S.), 268. The decision in this case was no doubt right, but it should have been on the ground that the plaintiff was the employer or assignee of the defendant and not that he was the author.
[328] See Petty v. Taylor [1897], 1 Ch., 465; Kekewich, J., at p. 475.
[329] Shepherd v. Conquest (1856), 17 C. B., 427; Nottage v. Jackson (1883), 11 Q. B. D., 627.
[330] (1856), 17 C. B., 427.
[331] On the facts of this case the work of the servant ought to have become vested in the employer.
[332] (1871), L. R., 6 C. P., 523; and see Tree v. Bowkett (1896), 74 L. T. (N. S.), 77.
[333] (1874), L. R., 9 Ch., 518; and see Bowen, L. J., in Nottage v. Jackson (1883), 11 Q. B. D., 627.
[334] Powell v. Head (1879), 12 Ch. D., 686; Lauri v. Renad (1892), 3 Ch., 402.
[335] Ibid.
[336] [1900], A. C., 539.
[337] Ibid.
[338] 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, sec. 18.
[339] Chitty, J., in Trade Auxiliary v. Middlesborough (1889), 40 Ch. D., at p. 430.
[340] And in one case it was even doubted whether it applied to newspapers, Platt v. Walter (1867), 17 L. T. (N. S.), 157.
[341] Lamb v. Evans [1893], 1 Ch., 218; Trade Auxiliary v. Middlesborough (1889), 40 Ch. D., 425.
[342] (1856), 17 C. B., 427
[343] Brown v. Cooke (1846), 16 L. J. Ch., 140.
[344] As to whether a written assignment of the copyright from the author would be necessary in such a case, see infra, at p. 74.
[345] (1895), 11 T. L. R., 507.
[346] Brown v. Cooke (1846), 16 L. J. Ch., 140.
[347] (1855), 16 C. B.,459.
[348] (1889), 40 Ch. D., 425; and see Trade Auxiliary v. Jackson (1887), 4 T. L. R., 130.
[349] [1893], 1 Ch., 218; and see Maple v. Junior Army and Navy Stores (1882), 21 Ch. D., 369.
[350] (1855), 16 C. B., at p. 484.
[351] (1881), 17 Ch. D., 708; and see Bishop of Hereford v. Griffin (1848), 16 Sim., 190.
[352] [1894], 3 Ch., 663.
[353] And see Coote v. Judd (1883), 23 Ch. D., 727.
[354] [1902], 1 Ch., 264.
[355] (1889), 40 Ch. D., 425.
[356] Chitty, J., 40 Ch. D., at p. 431.
[357] Brown v. Cooke (1846), 16 L. J. Ch., 140; Richardson v. Gilbert (1851), 1 Sim. (N. S.), 336; Collingridge v. Emmott (1888), 57 L. T. (N. S.), 864; Trade Auxiliary v. Middlesborough (1889), 40 Ch. D., 425; Trade Auxiliary v. Jackson (1887), 4 T. L. R., 130.
[358] Trade Auxiliary v. Middlesborough (1889), 40 Ch. D., at p. 430.
[359] See cases cited, p. 79, footnote 4.
[360] See Chitty, J., Trade Auxiliary v. Middlesborough (1889), 40 Ch. D., at p. 430.
[361] See Johnson v. Newnes [1894], 3 Ch., 663.
[362] Mayhew v. Maxwell (1860), 1 J. and H., 312.
[363] Smith v. Johnson (1863), 4 Giff., 632.
[364] Mayhew v. Maxwell (1860), 1 J. and H., 312.
[365] Ibid.
[366] Hereford v. Griffin (1848), 16 Sim., 190.
[367] (1855), 16 C. B., 459.
[368] (1891), 64 L. T., 452.
[369] 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45.
[370] 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, sec. 15.
[372] (1824), 2 B. and Cr., 861; see Cary v. Kearsley (1802), 4 Esp., 168; Storace v. Longman (1788), 2 Camp., 26 n.
[373] (1814), 3 M. and S., 7.
[374] (1838), 9 Sim., 151.
[375] (1839), 8 L. J. Ch., 216; see Hodges v. Welsh (1840), 2 Ir. Eq. R., 266.
[376] (1854), 4 H. L. C., 815; see M'Lean v. Moody (1858), 20 D., 1154; Jefferys v. Kyle (1856), 18 D., 906; Cocks v. Purday (1848), 5 C. B., 860.
[377] 4 H. L. C., at p. 880.
[378] 4 H. L. C., at p. 907.
[379] Hazlitt v. Templeman (1866), 13 L. T. (N. S.), 593; Grace v. Newman (1875), L. R., 19 Eq., 623; Cox v. Cox (1853), 11 Hare, 118.
[380] See Frowde v. Parish (1896), 27 Ont Rep., 526; Macmillan v. Suresh Chunder Deb (1890), Ind. L. R., 17 Calc., 951.
[382] See Shepherd v. Conquest (1856), 17 C. B., 427; Eaton v. Lake (1888), 20 Q. B. D., 378.
[383] 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, sec. 15; Leyland v. Stewart (1876), 4 Ch. D., 419; Power v. Walker (1814), 3 M. and S., 7; Davidson v. Bohn (1848), 6 C. B., 456; Clementi v. Walker (1824), 2 Bar. and Cres., 861; Jefferys v. Boosey (1854), 4 H. L. C., 815; [See the judgment of Lord St. Leonards at p. 944; but note also that Coleridge, J., at p. 906, expressed his disapproval of the reasoning in Power v. Walker and Davidson v. Bohn]; Kyle v. Jefferys (1859), 3 Macq., 611, 617, 18 D., 906; Cumberland v. Copeland (1862), 1 H. and C., 194; Cocks v. Purday (1848), 5 C. B., 860; see Drone on "Copyright," pp. 304-316, where the soundness of the case law that assignment must be in writing is doubted.
[384] Kyle v. Jefferys (1859), 3 Macq., 611; Jefferys v. Boosey (1854), 4 H. L. C., 815.
[385] Morton v. Copeland (1855), 16 C. B., 517.
[386] Liverpool General Brokers v. Commercial Press [1897], 2 Q. B., 1; see contra opinion of Lord Cockburn in Wood v. Boosey (1867), 7 B. and S., at p. 897; Morang v. Publishers (1900), 32 Ont. Rep., 393.
[387] 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, sec. 13.
[388] Stevens v. Wildy (1850), 19 L. J. Ch., 190.
[389] Ibid.
[390] Liverpool General Brokers v. Commercial Press [1897], 2 Q. B., 1.
[391] Levy v. Rutley (1871), L. R., 6 C. P., 523; Leader v. Purday (1849), 7 C. B., 4; Colburn v. Duncombe (1838), 9 Sim., 151; London Printing and Publishing Co. v. Cox [1891], 3 Ch., 291.
[392] Leader v. Purday (1849), 7 C. B., 4.
[393] Lacy v. Toole (1867), 15 L. T. (N. S.), 512.
[394] Tree v. Bowkett (1895), 74 L. T. (N. S.), 77; Lover v. Davidson (1856), 1 C. B. (N. S.), 182; Latour v. Bland (1818), 2 Stark, 382; Levy v. Rutley (1871), L. R., 6 C. P., 523; Colburn v. Duncombe (1838), 9 Sim., 151; but see Kyle v. Jefferys (1859), 3 Macq., 611, 18 D., 911.
[395] Cooper v. Stephens [1895], 1 Ch., 567; Marshall v. Petty (1900), 17 T. L. R., 501.
[396] Morris v. Kelly (1820), 1 Jac. and W., 481.
[397] Dennison v. Ashdown (1897), 13 T. L. R., 226.
[398] Sweet v. Cater (1841), 11 Sim., 572; Sweet v. Shaw (1839), 8 L. J. Ch., 216; Sims v. Marryat (1851), 17 Q. B., 281; Strahan v. Graham (1867), 16 L. T. (N. S.), 87; Thombleson v. Black (1837), 1 Jur., 198.
[399] Dupuy v. Dilkes (1879), 48 L. J. Ch., 682; Chappell v. Purday (1843), 12 M. and W., 303.
[400] Taylor v. Pillow (1869), L. R., 7 Eq., 418; Howitt v. Hall (1862), 6 L. T. (N. S.), 348.
[401] Sims v. Marryat (1851), 17 Q. B., 281; Queensberry v. Shebbeare (1758), 2 Eden Cha. Cas., 330; Williams' "Law of Personal Property," 15th edition, p. 523.
[402] Powell v. Head (1879), 12 Ch. D., 686.
[403] Lauri v. Renad [1892], 3 Ch., 402.
[404] Powell v. Head (1879), 12 Ch. D., 686.
[405] (1854), 4 H. L. C., at p. 940; and see Cocks v. Purday (1848), 5 C. B., 860.
[406] (1854), 4 H. L. C., 815.
[407] Taylor v. Neville (1878), 26 W. R., 299; Tree v. Bowkett (1895), 74 L. T. (N. S.), 77; see doubt expressed in Shepherd v. Conquest (1856), 17 C. B., at p. 436.
[408] Lucas v. Cooke (1880), 13 Ch. D., 872.
[409] 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, sec. 13.
[410] (1889), 40 Ch. D., 434, 435.
[411] Holt v. Woods (1896), 17 N. S. W. R., Eq., 36.
[412] See ex parte Dobson (1892), 12 N. Z. L. R., 171.
[413] See contra Howitt v. Hall (1862), 6 L. T. (N. S.), 348; Sweet v. Cater (1840), 11 Sim., 572; Davidson v. Bohn (1848), 6 C. B., 458.
[414] Rippon v. Norton(1839), 2 Beav., 63.
[415] Hole v. Bradbury [1879], 12 Ch. D., 886; Stevens v. Bradbury [1854], 1 K. and J., 168; Reade v. Bentley(1857), 3 K. and J., 271; Cooper v. Stephens [1895], 1 Ch., 567; ex parte Bastow [1854], 14 C. B., 631.
[416] Trade Auxiliary v. Middlesborough (1889), 40 Ch. D., 425, per Cotton, L. J.; Tuck and Sons v. Canton (1882), 51 L. J., Q. B., 363; Sweet v. Cater (1841), 11 Sim., 572.
[417] Taylor v. Neville (1878), 26 W. R., 299; Tree v. Bowkett (1895), 74 L. T., 77.
[418] (1878), 26 W. R., 297.
[419] Warne v. Routledge (1874), L. R., 18 Eq., 497; see Sweet v. Cater (1841), 11 Sim., 572; Stevens v. Benning (1855), 1 K. and J., 168.
[420] Latour v. Bland (1818), 2 Stark, 382.
[421] Willis v. Curtois (1838), 1 Beav., 189.
[422] See Mawman v. Tegg (1826), 2 Russ., at p. 392.
[423] 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, secs. 15 and 2.
[424] See Butterworth v. Kelly (1888), 4 T. L. R., 430; Leader v. Strange (1849), 2 Car. and K., 1010.
[425] 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, secs. 15 and 23. The remedies given by these two sections are cumulative, and may be recovered by one action; Muddock v. Blackwood [1898], 1 Ch., 58.
[426] 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, sec. 17; 39 and 40 Vict. c. 36, sec. 42.
[427] Ignorance will not excuse in the case of importing, but contra in the case of selling or hiring, Cooper v. Whittingham (1880), 15 Ch. D., 501.
[428] Cooper v. Whittingham (1880). 15 Ch. D., 501.
[429] 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, sec. 17; and see 39 & 40 Vict. c. 36, sec. 42.
[430] £5 to the use of the officer of customs, remainder to the use of the proprietor of copyright.
[431] Ibid.
[432] Cooper v. Whittingham (1880), 15 Ch. D., 501.
[433] [1901], 1 Ch., 374.
[434] Cf. Colburn v. Simms (1843), 2 Hare, 543.
[435] [1901], 1 Ch., 374.
[436] Novella v. Sudlow (1852), 12 C. B., 177; and see Beckford v. Hood (1798), 7 T. R., 620; Cambridge University v. Bryer (1812), 16 East, at p. 322.
[437] Muddock v. Blackwood [1898], 1 Ch., 58; Pike v. Nicholas (1869), L. R., 5 Ch., 251, at pp. 255 and 260.
[438] Hogg v. Kirby (1803), 8 Ves., 215, at p. 223; Grimson v. Eyre (1804), 9 Ves., 341, at p. 346; Kelly v. Hooper (1841), 1 Y. and C., 197, at p. 199; Colburn v. Simms (1843), 2 Hare, 543.
[439] Delfe v. Delamotte (1857), 3 K. and J., 581; but see Pike v. Nicholas (1869), L. R., 5 Ch., 251.
[440] Baily v. Taylor (1829), 1 R. and M., 73; Price's Patent Candles v. Bauwen (1858), 4 K. and J., 727; Delondre v. Shaw (1828), 2 Sim., 240; Sweet v. Maughan (1840), 11 Sim., 51.
[441] Eldon, L. C., in Mawman v. Tegg (1826), 2 Russ., at p. 400.
[442] Cooper v. Whittingham (1880), 15 Ch. D., 501.
[443] M'Neill v. Williams (1847), 11 Jur., 344; Hogg v. Kirby (1803), 8 Ves., 215.
[444] Hall, V. C., in Maple v. Junior Army and Navy Stores (1882), 21 Ch. D., at p. 372.
[445] Chappell v. Davidson (1856), 8 De G. M. and G., 1.
[446] Novella v. James (1854), 24 L. J. Ch., 111.
[447] Southey v. Sherwood (1817), 2 Mer., 435; Platt v. Button (1815), 19 Ves., 447; Saunders v. Smith (1838), 3 My. and C., 711; Lewis v. Chapman (1840), 3 Beav., 133; Assignees of Robinson v. Wilkins (1805), 8 Ves., 224, n; Baily v. Taylor (1829), 1 Russ. and My., 73; Rundell v. Murray (1821), Jac., 311; and see Buxton v. James (1851), 5 De G. and Sm., 80.
[448] Morris v. Ashbee (1868), L. R., 7 Eq., 34.
[449] Per Gifford, V. C., L. R., 7 Eq., at p. 39.