Haworth v. Nystrom

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania

Haworth v. Nystrom

11 F. Cas. 885, 8 W.N.C. 204, 1879 U.S. App. LEXIS 1983

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania·Decided May 13, 1879·Published

Opinion

BUTLER, District Judge.

The only case set out in the bill, as we understand it is that predicated on the defendant’s failure to perform his contract therein stated, and as both parties reside in Pennsylvania, this court has no jurisdiction of that.

The argument that the plaintiff may be regarded as standing on the copyright named as owner thereof, seeking relief against the defendant for infringement, is very ingenious, but cannot be accepted as sound. The demurrer must be sustained and the bill dismissed, without prejudice.

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

BUTLER, District Judge.

The only case set out in the bill, as we understand it is that predicated on the defendant’s failure to perform his contract therein stated, and as both parties reside in Pennsylvania, this court has no jurisdiction of that.

The argument that the plaintiff may be regarded as standing on the copyright named as owner thereof, seeking relief against the defendant for infringement, is very ingenious, but cannot be accepted as sound. The demurrer must be sustained and the bill dismissed, without prejudice.

Haworth v. Nystrom, 11 F. Cas. 885, 8 W.N.C. 204, 1879 U.S. App. LEXIS 1983 (circtedpa 1879).

Pincite

11 F. Cas. 885 (Haworth v. Nystrom) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.