The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1845-10-18

be most firm in his demands; the nature Of which,
however, was kept profound secret, even from his
own stat.
From the New York Journal Of Commerce.
VIcE CHAscELLoR's CouRr,
WEDNESDAY,, October Is.
The Mackenzie Psmphist--D ecision-How ps. Mac
kenzie and Others.
In this case an Injunction had been obtained pro-
hibitng the defendants from the further publication
of the book, and motion was made to dissolve or
modify the injunction; on which motion the court
now decided.
The vice chancellor said; This motion is founded
entirely on the bill which has been filed in this case
and ali the alleged facts in that bill to be taken
by the court true; and whatever legal rights the
complainant may have, are to be considered as
growing out of what is stated in his bill.
Before proceeding TO show what is stated by the
claimant in his bill, will endeavor to state my
views Of the law in relation to the rights Of property
in manuscripts and literary productions. And
will then look into the BILL and what rights the
plaintiff may have in relation to the property in
question.
According to my opinion, there may be two dis
tinct rights of property in literary productions.
There is a right in the manuscript material on
which the literary production rs impressed, and also
a right Of property in the composition ITSELF or in
that which is the product of the mind. There may
be, therefore, right Of property In what is but the
mere manual labor of the production, and also a
right in what emanates from the mnd--such the
writer's thoughts, reasons, or arguments Or If II
be history the author has right to property in
the narrative. From the decisions made by judges
in England, and cases which have been decided in
this court, there cannot be any difficulty in un-
derstanding these rights of property in literary pro-
ductions, and particularly in relation to letters.
When letter is sent by one person, and received
by another, the right of property is in the receiver
Of the letter, far as regards the sheet on which
the thoughts of the writer written And the per-
son whom the writer intends should receive the let
ter is entitled to it's possession and use, and he may
use it for all lawful purposes.
The transfer of letter is in nature Of gift, and
becomes consummated by its deverance to theper-
son to whom it was addressed; and therefore, what
ever is that paper sheet, becomes the property
of the receiver II is that species of property which
in common law is called chattel property and is as
much goods or chattel as anything else which may
be acquired. The use which the receiver of letter
may make of it is, to read it and keep it in his pos
session; or fit coners on him any rights relative to
a pending controversy, he produce the letter in
court of Justice, use il any other article of
property he may possess
In relation to the rights Of property in the COM
poser of the letter: If writes letter series
of letters, or composes any treatise in the express
sons or thoughts embodied in that treatise he has
a right of property. And if il is intended for
publication, he can that right of property to
himself by what is termed in law copyright
which is, in other words, the right to publish or
multiply copies Of It, and which is secured to
him under the act Of Congress But this copyright
exists Independent of the act of Congress. It ex-
lists the moments work is written, and the object of
proceeding according to the act of Congress is only
to secure that right.
A copyright exists in letter or letters which one
man may write and send to another; for, although
the sheet of paper, and what has been written it.,
belong to the receiver of it, yet if there be any In
tention TO publish it book, the right of publish
ing it belongs to the author oft
Having shown what this court considers the right
OF property, let now see what bill this is or what
it claims. The bill sets out by showing that Hoyt
was the author of three separate leters-two to Mr.
Van Buren,, and one to C. w. Lawrence--of which
he preserved copies in his possession, and placed
them in chest under lock and key, and that the
chest containing these and other letters was de-
posted in a room in the custom house; and that
some time in the year 1874, the chest was broken
open by one or more Of the defepdants, and these
letters distracted and taken possession of by de-
PENDANTS, or some of them and that the letters so
taken now compose part of the book published by
defendants In relation to those three letters, it
seems to me there can be no doubt of Hoyt's right
TO them, on every principle. He is entitled to the
copyright Of them, if he intended them for publica
ton; and that right should not be violated by any
And this right Of copyright existed independent of
the act Of Congress-, because Hoyt alone had the
right to publish; or multiply copies of them, and
could secure that right to himself, after the pubca
ton, for certain number Of years; that third
person could take and publish them. Such was the
right of Hoyt in these three letters.
In regard to the other letters written to Hoyt by
twenty-seven different persons, at different periods
they were received by him, and placed in the same
chest the other three letters. These twenty
seven letters were also taken out by force and vio-
lence from their place of deposite and also publsh
ed With regard to those, Mr.. Hoyt, in his bill,
claims only special right as bailee trustee for
those who wrote them to him. The bill therefore
proceeds in relation to those letters far only as
the application of them, and complains of viola
ton of his right by publishing them. The right he
claims in them is to hold them bailee or trustee,
and it cannot be denied that Mr.. Hoyt has chattel
interest in those papers, and that such right Of
property is recognised and protected by law. And
il to me, that taking them by force would be
an act of larceny punishable by Indictment and
believe that courts have decided that taking let
tiers feoniously is larceny. But with regard TO the
right Of property as bailee, il is right claimed by
this bill to be possessed by Hoyt; and it is compe-
tent for him to ask the protection of the court of
chancery to put him in possession of those letters
30 that he may have them to peruse, or show them
to his friends, or use as occasion may require.
Claiming therefore, on this special right of prop
erty as baiec, in that character he would have a
right to use those letters for his own purposes, and
bailee, he is entitled to keep possession of them
But if the writers authors Of those letters wished
to make them public, or into book, they would
have right to do so. That right might not belong
to Hoyt-though, for any other purpose, he has the
right to retain these letters, and consider them as
his own property. Such, then, suppose to be the
right Of Hoyt which the law conferred on him, and
which is claimed by him in this BILL He has filed
bill for the purpose of protecting himself in his
rights of this property and to restrain defendants
from making any further use of the letters than has
been already made. And now comes the question
how far viii the court Of chancery proceed to
protect these rights
In regard to the letters written by Hoyt, the court
has Jurisdiction 70 prevent the publication Of them
1t is said that those papers have Of the attr
butes ofliterary compositions, Of compositions in
tended for the public. But still, whether intended
for publication or not, the party to whom they be-
long, whether the writer or receiver of Them has
right to the protection of the court of chancery
against any violation Of the rights Of the party in
these productions-whether, as in the one case, it