[1513] Clifford, J., in Lawrence v. Dana (1869), 4 Cliff., at p. 80; Gray v. Russell (1839), 1 Story, 11; Folsom v. Marsh (1841), 2 Story, 100; Farmer v. Elstner (1888), 33 Fed. Rep., 494; Story v. Holcombe (1847), 4 M'L., 315; Emerson v. Davis (1845), 3 Story, at p. 795; Reed v. Holliday (1884), 19 Fed. Rep., 325; Greene v. Bishop (1858), 1 Cliff., 186.
[1514] Story, J., in Folsom v. Marsh (1841), 2 Story, at p. 115.
[1515] Lawrence v. Dana (1869), 4 Cliff., 1, 81, 83; Perris v. Hexamer (1878), 99 U. S. Rep., 674; Morrison v. Pettibone (1897), 87 Fed. Rep., 330.
[1516] Although this is an element in the question of substantiality, it is no answer to a charge of infringement to say that the infringing composition would have been equally valuable without the borrowed matter. Brady v. Daly (1897), 83 Fed. Rep., 1007.
[1517] (1897), 87 Fed. Rep., 330.
[1518] Howell v. Miller (1898), 91 Fed. Rep., 129.
[1519] Springer v. Falk (1894), 20 U. S. App., 296; Falk v. Donaldson (1893), 57 Fed. Rep., 32; Fishel v. Lueckel (1892), 53 Fed. Rep., 499.
[1520] Farmer v. Culvert (1872), 5 Am. L. T. R., 168; see Sanborn v. Dakin (1889), 39 Fed. Rep., 266.
[1521] Daly v. Palmer (1868), 6 Blatchf., 256; Daly v. Webster (1892), 1 U. S. App., 611; Brady v. Daly (1897), 83 Fed. Rep., 1007.
[1522] Falk v. Donaldson (1893), 57 Fed. Rep., 32; Falk v. Howell (1888), 37 Fed. Rep., 202.
[1523] Mead v. West (1896), 80 Fed. Rep., 380; List v. Keller (1887), 30 Fed. Rep., 772.
[1524] Ibid.
[1525] List v. Keller (1887), 30 Fed. Rep., 772.
[1526] (1875), 13 Blatchf., at p. 166.
[1527] Story, J., in Emerson v. Davis (1845), 3 Story, at p. 793.
[1528] Daly v. Palmer (1868), 6 Blatchf., 256; Daly v. Webster (1892), 1 U. S. App., 573; Goldmark v. Kreling (1888), 35 Fed. Rep., 661.
[1529] Broder v. Zeno (1898), 88 Fed. Rep., 74; Blume v. Spear (1887), 30 Fed. Rep., 629; Jollie v. Jacques (1850), 1 Blatchf., 618.
[1530] West v. Lawyers (1894), 64 Fed. Rep., 361.
[1531] List Publishing Co. v. Keller (1887), 30 Fed. Rep., 772.
[1532] Sanborn v. Dakin (1889), 39 Fed. Rep., 266; Farmer v. Culvert (1872), 5 Am. L. T. R., 168.
[1533] Chils v. Gronland (1890), 41 Fed. Rep., 145; Webb v. Powers (1847), 2 Wood. and Min., 497.
[1534] Banks v. M'Divitt (1875), 13 Blatchf., 163; Mead v. West (1896), 80 Fed. Rep., 380; Howell v. Miller (1898), 91 Fed. Rep., 129.
[1535] Banks v. M'Divitt (1875), 13 Blatchf., 163.
[1536] Mead v. West (1896), 80 Fed. Rep., 380.
[1537] Burnell v. Chown (1895), 69 Fed. Rep., 993.
[1538] Munro v. Smith (1890), 42 Fed. Rep., 266.
[1539] Ehret v. Pierce (1880), 18 Blatchf., 302; Mutual Advertising Co. v. Refo (1896), 76 Fed. Rep., 961.
[1540] Mutual Advertising Co. v. Refo (1896), 76 Fed. Rep., 961.
[1541] Serrana v. Jefferson (1888), 33 Fed. Rep., 347.
[1542] (1879), 15 Blatchf., 550.
[1543] Ladd v. Oxnard (1896), 75 Fed. Rep., 703; Brightley v. Littleton (1888), 37 Fed. Rep., 103; Mead v. West (1896), 80 Fed. Rep., 380; Springer v. Falk (1894), 20 U. S. App., 296.
[1544] Drury v. Ewing (1862), 1 Bond., 549.
[1545] Story v. Holcombe (1847), 4 M'L., 306; Webb v. Powers (1847), 2 Wood. and Min., 497, 512.
[1546] Falk v. Donaldson (1893), 57 Fed. Rep., 32.
[1547] Falk v. Howell (1888), 37 Fed. Rep., 202.
[1548] Gilmore v. Anderson (1889), 38 Fed. Rep., 846.
[1549] (1839), 1 Story, 11; see Story v. Holcombe (1847), 4 M'L., 306; Folsom v. Marsh (1841), 2 Story, 100, 116.
[1550] Gifford, J., in Lawrence v. Dana (1869), 4 Giff., 82; see Story, J., in Folsom v. Marsh (1841), 2 Story, p. 106; Story v. Holcombe (1847), 4 M'L., at p. 309.
[1551] Lawrence v. Dana (1869), 4 Cliff., p. 78; Story v. Holcombe (1847), 4 M'L., 309; Folsom v. Marsh (1841), 2 Story, 106; Gray v. Russell (1839), 1 Story, 11; Stowe v. Thomas (1853), 2 Wall. Jr., p. 547; Keene v. Wheatley (1860), 9 Am. L. R., 45.
[1552] (1847), 4 M'L., 306.
[1553] Story v. Holcombe (1847), 4 M'L., 308, 309.
[1554] (1869), 4 Cliff., 78.
[1555] Lawrence v. Dana (1869), 4 Cliff., pp. 78, 79.
[1556] Act of March 3, 1891, sec. 1.
[1557] Act of July 18, 1870; Revised Statutes, 1874, sec. 4952.
[1558] Stowe v. Thomas (1853), 2 Wall. Jr., 547.
[1559] Act of March 3, 1891, sec. 1.
[1560] Act of Congress, Aug. 18, 1856.
[1561] (1868), 6 Blatchf., 256, at p. 264.
[1562] (1868), 6 Blatchf., at p. 264.
[1563] Brady v. Daly (1899), 175 U. S. Rep., 148; Daly v. Webster (1892), 1 U. S. App., 573.
[1564] See Carte v. Duff (1885), 25 Fed. Rep., 183.
[1565] Act of 1891, sec. 7, amending Revised Statutes, sec. 4964.
[1566] Act of March 2, 1895, amending Revised Statutes, sec. 4965, and Act of 1891, sec. 8.
[1567] It has been suggested that this division of penalties applies only to "paintings, statues, and statuary." Thornton v. Schreiber (1887), 7 How., 8 Sup. Ct., 618.
[1568] Taylor v. Gilman (1885), 24 Fed. Rep., 632.
[1569] Bennett v. Boston (1900), 101 Fed., Rep., 445.
[1570] Act of Jan. 6, 1897, amending Revised Statutes, sec. 4966.
[1571] Chapman v. Ferry (1882), 12 Fed. Rep., 693.
[1572] Stevens v. Gladding (1854), 17 How., 447; Falk v. Gast (1893), 54 Fed. Rep., 890; Belford v. Scribner (1892), 144 U. S. Rep., 488; Chapman v. Ferry (1882), 12 Fed. Rep., 693.
[1573] West v. Lawyers (1894), 64 Fed. Rep., 360; Belford v. Scribner (1892), 144 U. S. Rep., 488; Farmer v. Elstner (1888), 33 Fed. Rep., 494.
[1574] Callaghan v. Myers (1888), 128 U. S. Rep., 617; Lawrence v. Dana (1869), 4 Cliff., 85; Elizabeth v. Pavement Co. (1877), 97 U. S. Rep., 126, 139.
[1575] Callaghan v. Myers (1888), 128 U. S. Rep., 617.
[1576] Ibid.
[1577] Gilmore v. Anderson (1890), 42 Fed. Rep., 267.
[1578] Daly v. Brady (1895), 69 Fed. Rep., 285; Atwill v. Ferrett (1846), 2 Blatchf., 39; Revised Statutes, sec. 860.
[1579] Taylor v. Gilman (1885), 24 Fed. Rep., 632; Johnson v. Donaldson (1880), 3 Fed. Rep., 22; Chapman v. Ferry (1882), 12 Fed. Rep., 693.
[1580] Thornton v. Schreiber (1887), 7 How., at p. 614; Springer v. Falk (1894), 20 U. S. App., 296.
[1581] Falk v. Heffron (1893), 56 Fed. Rep., 299.
[1582] Ibid.
[1583] Revised Statutes, sec. 4965.
[1584] Bolles v. Outing (1899), 77 Fed. Rep., 966; Reed v. Carusi (1845), 72 Fed. Cas., No. 11, 642; Backus v. Gould (1849), 7 How., 798; Thornton v. Schreiber (1887), 124 U. S. Rep., 612; Falk v. Curtis (1901), 107 Fed. Rep., 126; (1900), 98 Fed. Rep., 989; Child v. New York Times (1901), 110 Fed. Rep., 527.
[1585] Falk v. Curtis (1900), 100 Fed. Rep., 77.
[1586] Thornton v. Schreiber (1887), 124 U. S. Rep., 612.
[1587] Chapman v. Ferry (1882), 12 Fed. Rep., 693.
[1588] Previous demand is not a condition precedent; Hegemen v. Springer (1901), 110 Fed. Rep., 374.
[1589] Rogers v. Jewett (1858), 12 L. R., 339.
[1590] Sarony v. Ehrich (1886), 28 Fed. Rep., 79.
[1591] See Williams v. Smythe (1901), 110 Fed. Rep., 961.
[1592] Harper v. Holman (1897), 84 Fed. Rep., 224; Colliery v. Schools (1899), 24 Fed. Rep., 152; Little v. Gould (1851), 2 Blatchf., at p. 184.
[1593] Hubbard v. Thompson (1882), 14 Fed. Rep., 689; Trow v. Boyd (1899), 97 Fed. Rep., 586.
[1594] Reed v. Holliday (1884), 19 Fed. Rep., 325; Black v. Allen (1893), 56 Fed. Rep., 764.
[1595] Daly v. Palmer (1868), 6 Blatchf., 256.
[1596] Stuart v. Smith (1895), 68 Fed. Rep., 189.
[1597] Falk v. Curtis (1900), 98 Fed. Rep., 989.
[1598] Belford v. Scribner (1892), 144 U. S. Rep., 488.
[1599] Fishel v. Lueckel (1892), 53 Fed. Rep., 499.
[1600] Trow v. Boyd (1899), 97 Fed. Rep., 586.
[1601] Taylor v. Gilman (1885), 24 Fed. Rep., 632.
[1602] McDonald v. Hearst (1899), 95 Fed. Rep., 656.
[1603] Thornton v. Schreiber (1887), 7 How., at p. 614; Springer v. Falk(1894), 20 U. S. App., 296.
[1604] Revised Statutes, sec. 4968.
[1605] Wheeler v. Cobbey (1895), 70 Fed. Rep., 487; Daly v. Brady (1895), 69 Fed. Rep., 285; see Brady v. Daly (1899), 175 U. S. Rep., at p. 158.
[1606] Black v. Allen (1893), 56 Fed. Rep., 764.
[1607] Hill v. Epley (1858), 31 Perm. St., 331; Lawrence v. Dana (1869), 4 Cliff., 83; Heine v. Appleton (1853), 4 Blatchf., 125; Menendez v. Holt (1888), 128 U. S., 514; Keene v. Clarke (1867), 5 Robertson, N. Y., 38, 66, 67.
[1608] Boucicault v. Wood (1867), 2 Biss., 34.
[1609] Falk v. Schumacher (1891), 48 Fed. Rep., 232.
[1610] Ibid.
[1611] Scribner v. Allen (1892), 49 Fed. Rep., 854.
[1612] Revised Statutes, sec. 4969; sec. 914; see Johnston v. Klopsch (1898), 88 Fed. Rep., 692.
[1613] Revised Statutes, sec. 4963, amended Act, March 3, 1897.
[1614] Ross v. Raphael Tuck (1898), 91 Fed. Rep., 128.
[1615] Rosenbach v. Dreyfus (1880), 2 Fed. Rep., 217.
[1616] Taft v. Stephens (1889), 39 Fed. Rep., 781.
[1617] Rigney v. Raphael Tuck (1896), 77 Fed. Rep., 173.
[1618] Rigney v. Dalton (1896), 77 Fed. Rep., 176.
[1619] Ibid.
[1620] Hoertel v. Raphael Tuck (1899), 94 Fed. Rep., 844.
[1621] Rigney v. Dalton (1896), 77 Fed. Rep., 176.
[1622] Revised Statutes, sec. 4956, amended March 3, 1891, 26 S. L., 1107.
[1623] 26 S. L., 604.
[1624] 26 S. L., 604.
[1625] Ibid.
[1626] Ibid.
[1627] Ibid.
[1628] Revised Statute, sec. 4956, amended March 3, 1891, 26 S. L., 694.
[1629] Ibid.
[1630] Wheaton v. Peters (1834), 8 Pet., 591; Banks v. Manchester (1888), 128 U. S. Rep., 244; Jewellers v. Jewellers' (1898), 155 N. Y., 241; Holmes v. Hurst (1898), 174 U. S. Rep., 82; Palmer v. De Witt (1872), 47 N. Y., 532; West v. Lawyers (1896), 64 Fed. Rep., 360; Parton v. Prang (1872), 3 Cliff., 537; Merrell v. Tice (1881), 104 U. S. Rep., 557; Boucicault v. Hart (1875), 13 Blatchf., 47; Boucicault v. Fox (1862), 5 Blatchf., 87; Boucicault v. Wood (1867), 7 Am. L. R., 550; 2 Bis., 34; Daly v. Walrath (1899), 40 App. Div. N. Y., 220; Carte v. Ford (1883), 15 Fed. Rep., 439; Carte v. Duff (1885), 25 Fed. Rep., 183; Rees v. Peltzer (1874), 75 Ill., 475; Ewer v. Coxe (1824), 4 Wash. C. C., 487.
[1631] Boucicault v. Hart (1875), 13 Blatchf., 47; Daly v. Walrath (1899), 40 App. Div. N. Y., 220; Carte v. Ford (1883), 15 Fed. Rep., 439; Carte v. Duff (1885), 25 Fed. Rep., 183.
[1632] M'Lean v. Fleming (1877), 96 U. S. Rep., 245; Estes v. Williams (1884), 21 Fed. Rep., 189; Social Register v. Howard (1894), 60 Fed. Rep., 270.
[1633] Harper v. Holman (1897), 84 Fed. Rep., 224.
[1634] Social Register v. Howard (1894), 60 Fed. Rep., 270.
[1635] Estes v. Williams (1884), 21 Fed. Rep., 189; Estes v. Leslie (1886), 27 Fed. Rep., 22.
[1636] Aronson v. Fleckenstein (1886), 28 Fed. Rep., 75.
[1637] Merriam v. Holloway (1890), 43 Fed. Rep., 450; Merriam v. Famous Shoe (1891), 47 Fed. Rep., 411.
[1638] Ibid.
[1639] Clemens v. Belford (1883), 14 Fed. Rep., 728.
[1640] Clemens v. Belford (1883), 14 Fed. Rep., 728; Drummond v. Altemus (1894), 60 Fed. Rep., 338.
[1641] Drummond v. Altemus (1894), 60 Fed. Rep., 338.
[1642] Kipling v. Fenno (1900), 106 Fed. Rep., 692.
[1643] Doan v. American Book Co. (1901), 105 Fed. Rep., 772.
[1644] Merriam v. Famous Shoe (1891), 47 Fed. Rep., 411; Merriam v. Texas Siftings (1892), 49 Fed. Rep., 944.
[1645] Dodd v. Smith (1891), 144 Pa., 340.
[1646] Black v. Ehrich (1891), 44 Fed. Rep., 793.
[1647] Wheaton v. Peters (1834), 8 Pet., 591; Little v. Hall (1855), 18 How., 165; Bartlett v. Crittenden (1847), 4 M'L., 301; Palmer v. De Witt (1872), 47 N. Y., 532.
[1648] Wheaton v. Peters (1834), 8 Pet., 591; Jones v. Thoms (1843), 1 N. Y. Leg. Obs., 408; French v. Maguire (1878), 55 How. (N. Y.) Pr., 471; Oertel v. Wood (1870), 40 How. Pr., 10; Oertel v. Jacoby (1872), 44 How., 179; Rees v. Peltzer (1874), 75 Ill., 475; Crowe v. Aiken (1870), 2 Biss., 208; Carte v. Bailey (1874), 64 Maine, 458.
[1649] Wheaton v. Peters (1834), 8 Pet., 591; Palmer v. De Witt (1872), 47 N. Y., 532; Goldmark v. Kreling (1885), 25 Fed. Rep., 349; Daly v. Walrath (1899), 40 App. Div. N. Y., 220; 28 Chic. Leg. News, 49.
[1651] Parton v. Prang (1872), 3 Cliff., 537.
[1653] Oertel v. Wood (1870), 40 How. Pr., 10; Oertel v. Jacoby (1872), 44 How. Pr., 179.