Trow City Directory Co. v. Curtin

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

Trow City Directory Co. v. Curtin

36 F. 829, 1888 U.S. App. LEXIS 2685

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

DecidedDecember 1, 1888

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 36 F. 829 (Trow City Directory Co. v. Curtin) 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

Trow City Directory Co. v. Curtin, 36 F. 829, 1888 U.S. App. LEXIS 2685 (circtsdny 1888).

Pincite

Opinion

Wallace, J.

The demurrer to the complainant’s bill is well taken, and must be sustained as to each ground assigned. The bill of complaint is defective in failing to allege the performance of the acts required by sections 4956, 4962, Rev. St. U. S., which are essential, and conditions precedent to the title of the proprietor of a copyright. Wheaton v. Peters, 8 Pet. 591; Jollie v. Jaques, 1 Blatchf. 618; Parkinson v. Laselle, 8 Sawy. 330; Music Co. v. Paper Co., 19 Fed. Rep. 758. The allegation that “the copyright was taken out by the said Trow City Directory Company, pre[830]*830vious to the publication thereof, in full accordance with the requirements of the laws of the United States, ” is not sufficient: It does not tender any issue of fact, but is the statement of a legal conclusion. Lipe v. Becker, 1 Denio, 568; Frary v. Dakin, 7 Johns. 78. While it is not necessary or proper to state what is merely matter of evidence, the substantive issuable facts upon which the pleader’s cause of action depends must be alleged. The special demurrer to the parts of the bill which ask a court of equity to enforce penalties-and a forfeiture, and seek for a discovery, surrender, and delivery up to be canceled and destroyed of the copies of the defendant’s directory, is supported by the authority of Stevens v. Gladding, 17 How. 447.

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

Wallace, J.

The demurrer to the complainant’s bill is well taken, and must be sustained as to each ground assigned. The bill of complaint is defective in failing to allege the performance of the acts required by sections 4956, 4962, Rev. St. U. S., which are essential, and conditions precedent to the title of the proprietor of a copyright. Wheaton v. Peters, 8 Pet. 591; Jollie v. Jaques, 1 Blatchf. 618; Parkinson v. Laselle, 8 Sawy. 330; Music Co. v. Paper Co., 19 Fed. Rep. 758. The allegation that “the copyright was taken out by the said Trow City Directory Company, pre[830]*830vious to the publication thereof, in full accordance with the requirements of the laws of the United States, ” is not sufficient: It does not tender any issue of fact, but is the statement of a legal conclusion. Lipe v. Becker, 1 Denio, 568; Frary v. Dakin, 7 Johns. 78. While it is not necessary or proper to state what is merely matter of evidence, the substantive issuable facts upon which the pleader’s cause of action depends must be alleged. The special demurrer to the parts of the bill which ask a court of equity to enforce penalties-and a forfeiture, and seek for a discovery, surrender, and delivery up to be canceled and destroyed of the copies of the defendant’s directory, is supported by the authority of Stevens v. Gladding, 17 How. 447.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

36 F. 829, 1888 U.S. App. LEXIS 2685, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trow-city-directory-co-v-curtin-circtsdny-1888.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack