Rights. 61
as to whether the eircumstanoes do or do not bring the § 5 (■2^. case undtT one of the provisoes in section 5 (l)(c). ' — -
It is unfortunate that the Act does jiot provide for Assignment the assignment of a right of action in respect of past "^ ^'^ob* of infringements. It is very common to find that an injured respect of past party has an equitable title which requires some formality infringement, to make the legal title complete. This has to be com- pleted before issue of writ; but unless the previous legal owner can assign the right to sue, he must be joined as co-plaintiff' in order to recover damages for past offences (d:) . In the absence of express statutory provi- sion, it would seem that the right to sue cannot be assigned (e).
It is clear that no legal copyright can pass unless there Executoiy is an assignment f?e presenti of the then existing copy- agreement to right or, in the case of a work not yet in existence, of operative as the assignor's whole right, title and interest in the subject- an assign- matter (/) . An executory agreement being merely a pro- ^s"!*- mise de futuro cannot pass the legal right, although it may operate as an equitable assignment, and entitle the other contracting party to specific performance, or to a demand that the owner of the copyright shall jDermit him to sue infringers in his, the legal owner's name (g) . No actual words of assignment are necessary in order to pass the copyright {h) . If from the document itself it is evident that the proprietor of the copyright intended at that time to assign his copyright, it is sufficient. Thujs a receipt for the consideration money may operate as an assignment of the copyright {i) .
��{c) Ward, Lock ^ Co. v. Zonff, [1906] 2 Ch. 550 ; Macmillan v. Bent, [1907] 1 Ch. 49 ; Life Publishing Co. v. Rose PuhUshing Co. (1906), 12 Ont. L. R. 386.
[d) Bupuy V. Bilhcs (1879), 48 L. J. Ch. 682 ; Chappell v. Purdai/ (1843), 12 M. & W. 303.
(e) Bawson v. G. N. ^ City Ry., [1904] 1 K. B. 277 ; [1905] 1 K. B. 260 ; May v. Lane (1894), 64 L. J. Q. B. 237 ; King v. Victoria Insurance, [1896] A. C. 250.
(/) Levy V. Ridley (1871), L. R. 6 C. P. 523 ; Leader v. Purday (1849), 7 C. B. 4 ; Colburn v. Buncnmbe (1838), 9 Sim. 151 ; London Printing and Publishing Co. V. Cox, [1891] 3 Ch. 291.
[g) Hazlitt V. Templeman (1866), 13 L. T. (N. S.) 593; Gr ace \. Newman (1875), L. R. 19 Eq. 623; Cox v. Cox (1853), 11 Hare, 118; Sweet v. Cater (1841), 11 Sim. 572; Sweet v. Shaw (1839), 8 L. J. Ch. 216; Sims V. Marn/at (1851), 17 Q. B. 281 ; Strachan v. Graham (1867), 16 L. T. (N. S.) 87 ; Thombleson v. Black (1837), 1 Jur. 198.
(A) Lacy V. Toole (1867), 15 L. T. (N. S.l 512.
[i) Kyle V. Jefferys (1859), 3 Macq. 611 ; 18 D. 911 ; Tree v. Bowkett
�� �
