McLoughlin v. Tuck

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

McLoughlin v. Tuck

99 F. 562, 1900 U.S. App. LEXIS 5044

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

DecidedJanuary 17, 1900

StatusPublished

This text of 99 F. 562 (McLoughlin v. Tuck) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McLoughlin v. Tuck, 99 F. 562, 1900 U.S. App. LEXIS 5044 (circtsdny 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

This is a suit in equity praying injunction against improper use of copyright notice. This court has jurisdiction to entertain such suit only by virtue of the amendment to section 4963, Rev. St. U. S., which was contained in the act of March 8, 1897. That act, however, expressly provides that it “shall not apply to any importation or sale of such goods or articles brought into the United States prior to the passage hereof”; i. e. prior to March 3, 1897. Inasmuch as the bill does not aver that the acts complained of are concerned with goods or articles brought here subsequent to that date, it would seem that the bill does not aver facts sufficient to give the court jurisdiction of this suit for injunction by the persons complaining. However that may be, it appears from the record that the particular question is put to the witness touching goods shipped to this country in 1896. As to any impressing, issuing, selling, or importing of such goods with improper copyright notice, this court manifestly has no jurisdiction to maintain this suit, and therefore has no jurisdiction to require the witness to answer. Motion denied.

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

LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

This is a suit in equity praying injunction against improper use of copyright notice. This court has jurisdiction to entertain such suit only by virtue of the amendment to section 4963, Rev. St. U. S., which was contained in the act of March 8, 1897. That act, however, expressly provides that it “shall not apply to any importation or sale of such goods or articles brought into the United States prior to the passage hereof”; i. e. prior to March 3, 1897. Inasmuch as the bill does not aver that the acts complained of are concerned with goods or articles brought here subsequent to that date, it would seem that the bill does not aver facts sufficient to give the court jurisdiction of this suit for injunction by the persons complaining. However that may be, it appears from the record that the particular question is put to the witness touching goods shipped to this country in 1896. As to any impressing, issuing, selling, or importing of such goods with improper copyright notice, this court manifestly has no jurisdiction to maintain this suit, and therefore has no jurisdiction to require the witness to answer. Motion denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 F. 562, 1900 U.S. App. LEXIS 5044, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcloughlin-v-tuck-circtsdny-1900.