The New York herald., 1845-10-16

the principal objection s that bses relation to Ia6
nem no has no right to the interference of this Court
rerhaps X may be commended when the comes to
nearing that the relief which the Court can grant is not
as extensive as the bill the time II is
ooun1 TO retain the injunction. The question about the
Jcin as precautionary step, Is thing, and the
question about the decree Is another but in regard TO
tns right OF baee TO file bill in the Court Of Chan.
cery " seems TO me that there many where it
may o. doeand where baee s the only person to do
Tor the purpose OF relie baee may bring action
., 81 may ornx an action Of repevn he Is the per
son 10 receive possession when deprived of IT, aud the
Courof Chancery entertans bills having for their OBJ
ect he restoring Of property the accounting tor sales
Ia several elementary books TO the effect that pa rty
having the possession OF chest Of plate pawnee left
the chest ~ the possession Of the defendant who had
used 70 deliver ups the complainant filed bill to have
the possession of chest restored him. and the
hearing was contended that the right Of property was
III The pawn ner and In the Duke OF Uevonshre, no
owner oi portion OF the contents of the chest and that
hey shoud be made parties the suit the Court dec
des that the defendant should restore the chest to the
complainant, and to of third persons the de-
endant had nothing to do with that Indeed, il is gene
RAJ pncpie that he who has the legal custody ofproper
W The person to for possession in the of
a trustee or receiver of the Court Of Chancery but
where there no right to be settled and the only ques
uo Is the i5ht OF possesson he entitled to possession
a. oaee may claim IN his own nare so that this opec-
ton that Mr. Hoyt had right bailee to me to
a Hoy as bailee has the right Of possession ofthese
the Dill taken from his custody;
ne has the right to them restored him. and the
pl Piays to have them restored to him. redelivered to
him. SO that he may be rensated in the enjoyment Of
them whether the Court call on the
to account for the profits from the sale of the
book, and whether Hoyt the person to call for
count as Tar as these letters concerned will be dec
dsd hereafter; but the object of the injunction is to pre-
vent the defendants from parting with the letters and to
three letters he will have the right to make the de-
endahs account and If should turn out that he had
the bill may be good one for the purpose OF an ac-
counting for the profits arising from much Of the book
as Is composed OF letters, of which he had the entire
right seems to me- on the face Of the BILL that the
complainant is entitled to the injunction and that here
fore, the motion cannot be granted But it is asked for
the court to modify the injunction that il 10 too broad
and covers more ground than Hoyt is entitled to have
covered with an injunction Upon the argument, sug-
gested the difficulty in modifying the Injunction as the
book itself is al eady published and thousands were
sold before the bill fled If the bill showed
Of the intended publication of letters Of Hoyt and he
sought to enoin the publication of those letters
then the injunction should be restraining the publica
ton of such letters and tho defendants might publish the
book independent of those letters But the injunction in
this goes to restrain the defendants from making
any further publication of the book and that said
more comprehensive injunction than ought to be
granted for the defendant might publish the part Of the
book not composed OF these letters? Il makes differ
ence to the defendants merely injunction to restrain
the publication OF the book containing those letters But
has not this complainant right to insist that this book
shall not be further published unless the defendant
strike out in future editions these leters' There is
principle of law, that il u man mix his property with
mine SO that cannot distinguish mine it is only fair that
he shall lose his property by this unlawful mixing and
itfrequently becomes a question: how much of rI
piraed and the Court Of Chancery has endeavoed in
cases, 10 ascertain Dy reference TO MASTER how mucn
plaintiffs property is pirated and make the defendant
count accordingly Judge Story, in before hin
proceeded upon that ground and made the defendant
count for that portion belonging to the complainant an
in relation to the pratng Of copyrights that much
be piraed that the portion of the defendant be dis
tinguished he who committed the wrong was made to
suffer and to give the complainant the whole profit
the work Now in this the Court thinks itself JUS
tilted holding to the Injunction to The extent that il
granted and this extent the ground of confusion
property and at present unprepared say how far the
complainant is entitled to accounting. 1t to
fhoft ovfv nt,las,,
injunction as il stands the book is valuable
without these letters, they 60 and publish
editions without these letters AS the matter stands
it to that the injunction be retained even
20 the extent granted until the is brought
ng but at do not consider there ground su
cient to interfer. with it.
Motion denied with costs.