Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 32.djvu/602

566 HARVARD LAW REVIEW exchange 2^ does not render them conditional or non-negotiable, and alters in no way the general principle that after acceptance or payment the loss from forgery or other defects in the collateral falls on the drawee or buyer.^^ The great losses caused by the Knight, Yancey and Company frauds have led to some steps toward the establishment of a validation bureau at which backers can present collateral cotton bills of lading and have the agents' signatures checked by the railroads. It has also been sug- gested that surety companies guarantee the genuineness of the docu- ments.27 In some such way it may be possible to protect all parties from loss. Property in News. — Courts too often formulate a rule which is exclusive as well as inclusive and which tends to become a rigid guide for the future. Then begins the process of puncturing the inadequate rule with exceptions, new rules, until finally the light shines clear through the old doctrine and a principle takes its place.^ The United States Supreme Court, in the recent case of International News Service v. The Associated Press, ^ has gone a long way toward establishing as law the principle that no one shall be permitted to appropriate to himself the fruits of another's labor. This proposition would seem to carry conviction in its mere statement. Property rights in tangible objects are, of course, universally protected. There is discernible in the cases, however, a tendency to distinguish between values inhering in some palpable form which can be physically dominated and values of a less tangible character; and this, although the latter may have cost vast sums and, given legal protection, have vast ^ See page 561, ante, and note 2. ^ In accord with Guaranty v. Hannay, supra, note 15, are Springs v. Hanover and Vamey v. Monroe, supra, note 14, and Bank of Guntersville v. Jones, 156 Ala. 525, 46 So. 971 (1908) (goods subject to landlord's lien); WoddeU v. Hanover, 48 N. Y. Misc. 578, 97 N. Y. Supp. 305 (1905) — no goods shipped (not a biU of lading case); 18 Col. L. Rev. 480. Contra, La Fayette v. Merchants' Bank, 73 Ark. 561, 84 S. W. 700 (1905) (forged bill of sale on back of draft); and dicta in Hoffman v. Bank, 12 Wall. (U. S.) 181, 189, 190 (1870), and Guaranty v. Grotrian, note 18, supra. " 27 Banking L. J., 763, 937; 28 Ibid., 450, 710, 787. ^ E. g., contrast the able opinions of Sanborn, Circuit Judge, in Huset v. J. I. Case Threshing Machine Co., 120 Fed. 865, 57 C. C. A. 237 (1903), and of Cardozo, J., in MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 217 N. Y. 382, in N. E. 1050 (1916). 2 U. S. Sup. Ct., December 23 (October Term, No. 221), 1918. The court granted an injimction against, inter alia, the taking of news from early editions of complainant's newspapers and from its bulletin boards and selling it to defendant's customers, until after its news value had disappeared. The court treated the case as one of unfair competition, speaking of a Umited or ^wo^i-property in news. Mr. Justice Holmes dissented in part; he took the ground that there are some values which the law does not protect, including that in gathered news, but he was of the opinion that this was a converse case of "passing off," where the defendant passed off another's goods as his own, and that an injunction might be granted against the use of news gathered by the complainant without giving credit. Mr. Justice Brandeis, in dissenting, admitted the propriety of some remedy; he argued that the granting of relief would require 'the making of a new rule, and without denying the court's right to make new rules on the analogy of old ones in order to cope with a new wrong, he maintained that, there being probably a public interest involved, legislatures covdd best deal with the problem.