New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1845-10-21

IT,. Mackenzie Ca-e-The Injunction The Vice
ChanceIlOr's Decision.


psler. T.. :. Dist Attorney for the Southern Dis
80, n New York, and Jesse Hoyt, Counselor at
r,x formerly Collector Of Customs for the Port OF
~ York. and in view of the very extraordinary
o,;rop n say the least OF H. recently PRONOUNCED by
re Vice Chancellor. upon motion argued before
him in the cause to dissolve or modify the iojunc
tim be- has granted, to give to our readers some
,,b,, extended review Of the arguments and deer
sion.
ahertbe publication and a somewhat extended
H..oo;na,ion of the book in question, Jesse Hoyi
elod his Bin in Chancery against Mackenzie and
others the compiers, Printers, Publishers ana book
.ellers Of the work. and obtained an Injunction
against them restraining the further issue or sale
and ordering the Booksellers not TO pay over TO any
oerson. bu, 10 hold subject TO the decree OF 'he
cu,, the procecds Of the sale Of the book, then IN
their hands
The claim upon which this Injunction rests as sci
forth in the Bill, stripped Of the verbiage OF Chan'
Gerry document is simply ihis-That Jesse Hoyi the
complsinant is the author and composer OF Mree oil
the letters Published in the book and as SUCH has the
,rcinsire right to multiply copies OF the same ana
Tia, this right the Authors right has been invaded
That Jesse Hoyt was the receiver OF one hundred
and forty six letters published in the book, and ina,
Martin Van Buren, BENZ +. Butler, William l.. Marcy and
others were the authors and composers OF those letters
Addressed to bimand that they the writer's were pos
.e.,ed Of the cusre right to multiply copies OF them
md Tia, he Jesse Hoyt the receiver Of those letters
wa, IN law the baee or trustee of the various authors
for the protection Of their exclusive priyiege-and that
this their right Of property, had been invaded by the
pubcstion This is the entire claim, and although the
Bill is many pages long, this is all that need be reced
for the consideration of the principles in the law OF pro
ver,y in manuscript letters which the case involves.
To tesi the validity of this claim, motion was made,
IN the part Of one Of the dofendansio dissolve modi
" the Injunction 1t up for argument on Monday
as--the argument was continued and closed on Tues
d.y and the opinion OF the Vice Chancellor was given
Wednesday.
Ew srouGnroN. Esq. appeared counsel for the
defendant and J. PREsoorT HALL, ESQ. for the com
pisinsnt
The first two points made by the defendants counsel
support Of the motion preliminary to the main
ground. taken and had reference to the form in which
the suit was broughi-snd were,
l That the Bill was defective for violation ofthe
tied rule Ia Equity that two or more distinct and sepsr
able interests be claimed in the suit, ana
"a That the Bill equally defective for violation OF
smother rule well established that every party IN in
ere. in the claim SET up must be party to the record.
Authorities cied in support OF these positions. and
application made Of them 10 the case at Bar.
a. The third point made in support of the motion was
hsThai upon the supposition that an crcIusre r9 OF
properly in the letters published as literary compositions
existed anu one and that right had been lnyaded-thai
he Injunction granted was much too broad Tor this that
us an established rule in relation 20 uuuctons issued
oresrsn the publication of piraied works that where
hook published. portion ofwnich only IL alleged 10 be-
inning ment of the right OF property and that portion
dsungIshabe and scpusbe from the rest and easily
cefined either by examination reference 20 amas
tr hattie Injunction applies only % ret portion. Here.
shoagh the parts Of the book alleged To nave been pirai
ID are moi only ssccrisnsblc upon examination hut
distinctly pointed the Bill and constitute but about
oae hfd otis copicnis) the Injunction is made to APP
ry % the cqfirt book
support o., this ground too authorities were cited
iih Il was commended that there wa- no doctrine in
'qaiy jurisprudence more clearly settled than that The
th"tns power Of a Court of (hnnccry could only hc
.ansd where the complainant praying for the inunc
200 hal clear right at law that where any reasonable
soloi existed OF that night he was sent 10 la~ Ia Try u
mai he was the utmost extent 10 which the Courts had
sne In relaxation Of the old severor rule, which rcquir
1'ha ishio be first established 10y verdict in all
Is 10 THIS point the cited were iull aud decI-
I've -ehd The counsel argued that case could hardly Dee
'Nos'd m which the right of the complainant was
aoso 81 than This up 10y Jesse loyt Indeed the idea
aa5s IN action a, law Of the claim pretended here
'osa not but be regarded as prepOstcrous.
90 itNas argued that upon the supposition that any
'su property exists in the letters IN question rs lite
A compositions that far regards the one hundred
-aaHysN eters written Jesse lloyt that right is Ia
~ uihos OF those letters and Ia no manner IN the com.
f@he' nat the assumption of the character OF haice
70 u1'rs on ms part is assumption, and Is not
IN, ;'sS .! IA" oT sustained by single precedent
~ INC Only night Of property which Jesse lloyi has Ia
e eurrsis amerc chatie interest in the manuscript
e receiver OF the letters. which inieres, gives him
& usat only To the immediate possession ofthosc spc-
pepeIs but by no means enables him 10 restrain the
.e printed copies OF them already published; that
- use reported IN The books where Court OF Chan.
a m'enercd by Injunction 10 protect the cAdftcs in
va Complainant IN manuscript letters. Il has been
P-'"cei'oR, and 10 restrain a publcstion-nev,r
-, restrain the sale. To this point many cases
~ o'td The leading case, decided by Lord Hard.
sNA'"s thai OF Pope Curl in the ia OF Alkyns
te's- lhs case established the principle which has
''ei snoe been regarded as settled law
.cic me poet fled bin against Curl the bookseller
ior an Injunction TO restrain the sale OF book
s-lled Letters Of Pope swift aud others The
N0oa'isied OF letters written by Pope 70 swirl Bol.
sNVAe Arbuhuoi and others and OF letters by them -
-. i@c oooA Was published and the injunction was
Ase written % him y 'Vf'' NV
%, case tee ". rritchard . swansion's Rcp 40
sso ched as July sustaining tho position The lst.
'nere we're written by the complainant 10 M. de.
sl'at They were private, familiar letter. ard no;
- "~ieiy compositions as gave the complainant any
A+sNe rsnt Of property ~ author Ru, fhe defenf
receiver 81 them, possessed chaitel ip,ers.,
-'laierest however the Chancellor declared Bo9 ~,
'e0ssd by the return OF the originals 10 H. ,o,,,l
ne defendant retaining copies and inss,.ucb =. h.,
.-Ssten was made, the injunction retained n p.
nu Many other authorities were tied but h..
= s-9eien' 10 Illustrate the position.
"a Il Was farther argued that no right II prone,,v
-. nat claimed IN the bil existed IN Jesse lloyt i
% os ihrcc letters. OF In Van Buren's and the re-,
- 'emsining one hundred and fofty-six. and
,s,fe n Hoyi g. their bsiiee OF trustee for tas
s,s, s''efs themselves were n0tfcrSry compositions
zoe meaning q the law that they possessed none
49,, eotcs or characteristics u literary prOperty
80 were not and could not be the subject mater Of
and therefore, thstihcir writers were not Dos.
tss,,h NY exclusive right % multiply copies o;thtm
$780, ''ncnou was clear distinction and easily AZ.
eo-,,-o ADD understood between such letters Whose
sgrs sN was The policy OF the law 70 protect ana
srre ere emitted to no such pro;ecuou-such A. ar,
~ Wee upon familiar subjects, by Pope or Wit
ss.,us'on and such this book contains from,
49, m Van buren,. and the rest This d!siipc
"a. 49, u'ken IN every reported in which II
gvey -. eeessafy 10 amply IL and IN none NOR, po.
Eds.,Ss-i 10 That OF WeimOre vs. Scoveli ~ ais r
esor "a mp SIS, decided by his honor Vice han
H,n,..saN Gun now presiding This, was bin fled bv
y4aess 's.n'' ssmm and others. 10 restrain their
Hsh.l's OF private letters written by Iyetmor,. fo
o5,,, Nhle The latter was member nj Conc -
- In Nitchell no ns,ter how by the defend
K In, ~ junction sas granted upon the ning of the
upon motion. The claim W "a not based
Ne so' o' property In the complainant but that
SOD ma was base breach OF trust and was de-
ps1,, YOU'D tend 10 inure the feelings OF the com
roaa he ChAnc,llor reviewed all The asci,Son.
st an. rope Va. Cuf' down to the present time
~ " tne conclusion. deduced from them thu, 8