Case ID: h-mch_4/html/0345-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

GENERAL COURT,
    MAY TERM, 1799.
    Kilty vs. Green.
    This- was ah action of assumpsit, docketted by the Consent of the parties, for the purpose of obtaining the opi-ilion of the-court ori the following statement, vizis
    That at November session 1798,. the general assembly, by a-resolution, appointed the plaintiff to revise the acts of assembly of the-state, and to prepare an edition thereof, with a full and complete index thereto, tobe Compiled in a particular manner; or in such other mods' as the plaintiff should-deem best adapted to the purpose; that such compensation be allowed to the plaintiff as the' work, and the miuiner in which it might be performed;, should appeal1 to merit; that.he should include, in the said collection the original charter to Lord Baltimore, &c. kc-. That the defendant; printer of the state; be directed to-print, and procure to be bound, 200 copies of the said edition of the laws, under the directions of the plaintiff; = and that the governor and council be, empowered, by order on the treasury; to advance to the printer such sum-as may,be necessary' for the purpose, 8tc. -
    That the. plaintiff did, in pursuance of the Said resolution, revise the acts of the general assembly of this state, and prepare an edition thereof in the manner directed by the said resolution; and did give directions to the defendant; the printer of the state,td print the said edition of-' the acts of assembly so as aforesaid revised by him in the manner directed by the said resolution; áOO copies of which edition were printed by the defendant accordingly, in the month of April 1799. -That tile plaintiff, being.a-• citizen of the United States of America, did, before the publication of the book Of laws so prepared, to wit, on toe 30th of March 1799, deposit a printed copy of the title thereof in the-clerk’s office of the district court where he resided, viz. in the office of the clerk of thedistrict court of the United States for the Maryland Dis'rict, and secured the copy right to the said book of laws, in the manner prescribed and directed by the act of congress of the 31st of May 1790, entitled, “An'act,” &r. ami did perform all other requisites required by "the said act of congress. That the defendant, within one year before, (he bringing this suit, to wit, on the 2d of May 1799, did, < without the consent'of the-plain tiff in any manner givmi, print 101 copies of the said book of laws, over and above the 200 copies printed for the state in pursuance of! lie resolution aforesaid. That the"defendant knowing that the Saul 101 copies of the. said book of laws tobe printed without the.consent of the plaintiff, did'scll the said 101. copies of the said book of Ia\vs to sundry persons at the rate or price of, &c. for eacli copy, amounting for the whole to the sum of, &c. and which the defendant received. That the manuscripts of the plaintiff used in revi-, sing the acts of assembly aforesaid, and preparing an edition thereof, viz. the notes of the time of the repeal or expiring of each law, and the continuances of such acts as were originally passed for a limited time, and. the index as aforesaid, were printed and published in the said 101 copies over and above the 200 copies printed for the state, without the consent and approbation of the plaintiff in any manner first had and obtained. That the plaintiff was allowed by the general assembly the sum of 15001. being such compensation as the work and the manner in which it had been performed did appear to merit, in pursuance of tbe engagement contained in the resolution aforesaid, which sum the plaintiff received. That the governor and council advanced to the defendant the sum of 5001. for the purpose of printing the said 200 copies of the said edition of the said laws, and that the sum of 1000Í. being the residue of the claim of the defendant against the state for printing the said 200 copies, was after the said printing paid to him by order of the general assembly.
    The question w'as, whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover against the defendant the sum of money for which the said 101 copies of the said edition of the laws were soldi
    
      Kilty, in propria persona,
    
    
      Shaaff, for the defendant.
   The* Generas Court gave judgment upon the said statement for the defendant,