Banks v. Manchester

(Redirected from 128 U.S. 244)


Banks v. Manchester
Syllabus
802939Banks v. Manchester — Syllabus
Court Documents

United States Supreme Court

128 U.S. 244

Banks  v.  Manchester

Banks v. Manchester.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the
Southern District of Ohio.

No. 45. Submitted October 29, 1888.—Decided November 19, 1888.

In a hearing on bill and answer, allegations of new matter in the answer are to be taken as true.
Where the judge of the Supreme Court of a State prepares the opinion or decision of the court, the statement of the case and the syllabus or head-note, and the reporter of the court takes out a copyright for such matter in his name “for the State,” the copyright is invalid.
A copyright, as it exists in the United States, depends wholly on the legislation of Congress.
The judge who, in his judicial capacity, prepares the matter above mentioned, is not its author or proprietor, in the sense of § 4952 of the Revised Statutes, so that the State can become his assignee and take out a copyright for such matter.

Bill in equity, to restrain the defendant from infringing the plaintiffs’ copyright. The defendant answered, and the complainants demurred to the answer. Decree dismissing the bill, from which plaintiffs appealed. The case is stated in the opinion of the court.

Mr. Edward L. Taylor, for appellants, cited: United States v. Hillegas’s Executors, 3 Wash. C. C. 70; Hines v. North Carolina, 10 Sm. & Marsh. 529; Mexico v. De Arangois, 5 Duer (N. Y.) 634; Wheaton v. Peters, 8 Pet. 591; Banks v. De Witt, 42 Ohio St. 264; Little v. Gould, 2 Blatchford, 362; Stationers v. Patentees about the Printing of Rolls’ Abridgment, Carter, 89; Millar v. Taylor, 4 Burrow, 2383; Basket v. University of Cambridge, 1 Wm. Bl. 105; Myers v. Callaghan, 5 Fed. Rep. 726; Gould v. Banks, 53 Conn. 415; Banks v. West Publishing Co., 27 Fed. Rep. 50.

Mr. Richard A. Harrison, for appellee, cited: United States v. Rhodes, 1 Abbott (U. S.) 28; People v. Imlay, 20 Barb. 68; Gendell v. Orr, 13 Phila. 191; Miller v. Taylor, 4 Burrow, 2383; Lindsley v. Coats, 10 Ohio, 243; King v. Beck, 15 Ohio, 559; Banks v. West Publishing Co., 27 Fed. Rep. 50; Myers v. Callaghan, 5 Fed. Rep. 726; Nash v. Lathrop, 142 Mass. 29; Atwill v. Ferrett, 2 Blatchford, 39; Connecticut v. Gould, 34 Fed. Rep. 319; Gould v. Banks, 53 Conn. 415; Davidson v. Wheelock, 27 Fed. Rep. 61; Chase v. Sanborn, 4 Cliff. 306; Myers v. Callaghan, 20 Fed. Rep. 441; Banks v. Manchester, 23 Fed. Rep. 143.

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).

Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse