Encyclopedia Britannica Co. v. American Newspaper Ass'n

Third Circuit

Encyclopedia Britannica Co. v. American Newspaper Ass'n

142 F. 966, 74 C.C.A. 228, 1906 U.S. App. LEXIS 3692

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedJanuary 24, 1906

DocketNo. 43

StatusPublished

This text of 142 F. 966 (Encyclopedia Britannica Co. v. American Newspaper Ass'n) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Encyclopedia Britannica Co. v. American Newspaper Ass'n, 142 F. 966, 74 C.C.A. 228, 1906 U.S. App. LEXIS 3692 (3d Cir. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

DALLAS, Circuit Judge.

The decree dismissing the bill of complaint in this case was right, and we adopt as our own the opinion by which it was vindicated in the court below. Encyclopedia Co. v. Werner (C. C.) 135 Fed. 841. The learned judge appropriately and correctly applied to the construction of the provisions of the Interim Copyright Act of January 7, 1904, c. 2, 33 Stat. 4, upon which the appellant relied, the familiar rule “that a thing may be within the [967]*967letter of the statute, and yet not within the statute, because not within its spirit, nor within the intention of its makers.” Holy Trinity Church v. United States, 143 U. S. 457, 12 Sup. Ct. 511, 36 L. Ed. 226; Rothschild v. Adler-Weinberger S. S. Co., 130 Fed. 866, 65 C. C. A. 350.

The decree is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

DALLAS, Circuit Judge.

The decree dismissing the bill of complaint in this case was right, and we adopt as our own the opinion by which it was vindicated in the court below. Encyclopedia Co. v. Werner (C. C.) 135 Fed. 841. The learned judge appropriately and correctly applied to the construction of the provisions of the Interim Copyright Act of January 7, 1904, c. 2, 33 Stat. 4, upon which the appellant relied, the familiar rule “that a thing may be within the [967]*967letter of the statute, and yet not within the statute, because not within its spirit, nor within the intention of its makers.” Holy Trinity Church v. United States, 143 U. S. 457, 12 Sup. Ct. 511, 36 L. Ed. 226; Rothschild v. Adler-Weinberger S. S. Co., 130 Fed. 866, 65 C. C. A. 350.

The decree is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 F. 966, 74 C.C.A. 228, 1906 U.S. App. LEXIS 3692, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/encyclopedia-britannica-co-v-american-newspaper-assn-ca3-1906.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack