Alton B. Parker.
149
forty-seven cases opposed to the general manufactured article, for which the manu proposition laid down by the Court, these facturer has no remedy at law because of cases being drawn from all over the United his inability to prove special damage, are States, and only about half a dozen of them not the subject of judicial cognizance, and having been suggested to the Court— the that their future publication cannot be re rest apparently representing voluntary re strained by injunction. search.1 The other and more flagrant case is the well-known case of Koberson r. Rochester The New York Court of Appeals has been Folding Box Company, 171 N. Y. 538. It much criticized of late for two decisions was there held that an injunction could not denying equitable relief. The Court bases be granted to restrain the unauthorized pub its refusal in both cases on the fact that it can find no authority for the recognition of ¡ lication and distribution of lithographic prints of a young woman as part of an ad the rights said to be threatened nor for the vertisement of a legitimate manufactured issue of an injunction to restrain the act article, there being no allegation that the complained of. In both these cases the picture was libelous. the picture being a good opinion was written by the Chief-Judge; in likeness and being used to attract attention one case, carrying the Court with him by five to two, and in the other by a bare to the advertisement, and it appearing that the publication had caused the young woman majority. If decisions of this kind are to great mental and physical distress, necessi be particularly associated with the writer of tating the employment and attendance of a the opinions, we seriously doubt if in the physician. In all the lower courts the deci long run these decisions can be accepted by sion had been in favor of the plaintiff, and courts of equity as a correct statement of the Court of Appeals was closely divided by law, or if they are, that they can be regarded a vote of four to three. This case has been as contributions of value to our system of so widely discussed that it is not worth equitable jurisprudence. The first of these while to add to the literature on the subject, cases is Marlin Fire Arms Company v. but it would seem that for a court of equity Shields, 171 N. Y. 384. In that case it ap to declare itself unable to give such relief pears that the proprietor of a magazine as was there asked for, because of the diffi largely devoted to sports, published an al culty in drawing the line, or because some leged letter criticizing the Marlin rifle, say day it might be asked to enjoin a publica ing that it had a faulty extractor and re jector; that it was "no good," and using tion in the newspapers of a public man's other language which the complaint alleged portrait, indicated a distinctly reactionary to be unjust and malicious; the complaint policy. The current development of the lawfurther state 1 that the alleged letter was not is along the lines of equitable jurisprudence rather than legal. Probably to no commonin fact written by a correspondent, but was law judge in the future will be given the a sham letter written and published by the opportunity to repeat Lord Mansfield's work defendant to force plaintiff to advertise with of rebuilding the fabric of commercial law. him, or failing in that, to gratify his malice. A decision in equity of this sort tending to As the case came up on demurrer, all the allegations were, for the purpose of the deci tighten the bond of precedent is distinctly unfortunate. Tt may well be that the remedy sion, to be taken as true. The Court holds of injunction should be limited rather than that unjust and malicious criticism of a extended, but the Foberson case is not 1 Peck v. Schenectady Railway Company, 170 N. Y. founded on a refusal further to extend the 298, 3U.
