New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1858-08-26


was continued by that firm; that IN December, l6",
the original members Of the finn, David Banks, Wm.
G0ud sId Anthony Gould, vlthdres from the brIn,
sid the remsnins plsilhf taken into the firm rs
q partrer, and the name Of the firm sss hanged 10
Bar ks Brothers to whioh hfm all the copy nights
ard contracts we're hslsisret, including the c)nl's
with Barbour, aDd r5tice Of slch tansier was gwen
to Barbour.
II is ftter alleged that Barbour has prepared And
caused to be printed by Dsvscn tie 2jth yolu De of
such Report and sbou. 10 cell the sane 70 tho
plaintiff injury.
The answers Of the defsdaDtI show tina. the de-
fndsnt Barbour msje bis contra / with svo sohs,
Witm ara Anthony G. lUid, ana that IN making the
contract lie relied upon tner personal ell rs and lnhd
suce experience ard Teput III n ard That ths brnei
the principal MOVING consideration to mske tle Coz
trac. with him. L. denies knowledge belief a. TO
the admission Of any Of the plaintiffs mo the hfu IN
lSjI, or OF any tranfier O. them.
The defendants slso deny any knowlejge or inDrms
ton 10 their interest in the contract, Or that the
contract had bteu transferred 10 gay un snua y,
1853 when Barbour received circular from the new
firm of Baiks Blothers.
The defendant Barbour claims that his ntract was
only made with the old firm and that the plaintiffs
have light to such contract bat that has ceased
aud teImnsied; that the contract was one requiring
the personal efforts and seryoes Of le members OF tue
former rm, and that the sae could not DO transfer
red TO the plsiltfs.
Anidayts were also submitted, stating other matters
relating 10 the dealings between the parties and the
sfhdsyt OF Little states that he purchased the copy
night from Barbour, and paid for u, without any know
ledge that the plaintiffs mad any right or clam 70 the
contract; that ne has taken out a copyright OF the
yolume mas published the sad 10Th volume, aud has
the sane ready FOR sale.
TIE question watch arises to he right Of the plain
tis 10 erfJree ths contract whether, they could,
this contract s 10 be cor dered permsnen contrast,
without any termination Other than the rets 81 OF toe
Judgea to furnish Their opGOns therefor, are not ne
cessay to be decided Tor the disposition OF tnis mo-
ton The contract 10 q personal contract with the
., IL NJ Hqu n
Yoik and Gould, Banks Gould Of Albany, ana pro
ylGes for copyright to be taken out By them or Their
sssiens; and they for themselves, their heirs and
assgnr agree 10 pay for each volume certain amount
Tie col CATION on toe part OF the assigns OF the urn
TO pay for tho volumes az published by taem, would
zee TO imply the right 70 assign the contract ss
quste TO the oblgst Oh the part OF the ss.
signs Of the trm to pay for any volumes delivered
under II.
In regard to the 25th vouue of the Reports, there
are However other reasons which induce me TO re-
fuse any rurC to restrain The sale OF that yOiu ne
Fast the deferd ant, Little, has purchased ana
psd for the volume without snOWedge OF any night or
claim ON the Jat oft the plaintiffs 70 tue same. Bsr
hour has seen tit 10 violate the contract and has dls-
posed of tie volume 10 Latte, no 10 responsible 10
damsges, sad the plaintiffs have DO otaer remedy as
to that volume than Gn action therefore, Whea
contract is made to sell personal property, or DO work
for another and the party chooses TO sell such prop
erty TO third person, without nooc9 OF me eSih te
breach C the cOItac gives no night 70 the party IN
lufeo 70 lolON LlhL property Az 'i0 h.-No VI %" ''
cent purchaser. ,
Second. The damages TO bs sustsined by the
plaintiffs, if they entitled 10 the contract can
costly be- eleItElned in an action FOR SUCH damages
The number CT the eIition published, the value of
each CO uu r. and toe profits TO be inside from the sale
sre matters aton AID there - no need OF
al rjurciiot to prevent serious or irreparaoe injury
TO the plaintiffs.
The code undoubtedly has used terms 10 regard TO
this writ which, literally construed have extended 1t
10 mary cases in which it had not been previously
used buI in case OF ere brescn Of contract, easily
aceItained and for which ample remedy exists by
action see no proprety in rtsorrg to 1t. Such 40
extension of the writ cannot consider was ever 10
tended by the Legislature and caution IN the grantngo
riuIcOns is called for rather than any fdriner sdii-
ton to the cases 10 which il may be used.
Third: Ii would be unadvsable, unless necessary
for the protection Of the plaintiffs to delay by an IL
junction the sse Of work which is required tor the
public use and in which the public are interested.
10 delay the public until the tIia OF this case
SSa sS Year e. tie utcsohSsshehcs ~ Usts and
suitors For these reasons an Of the opinion that
the mCton for the irjuI cton 10 the twenty fifth
yolun Of the Reports should be denied.
There is nothing in the complaint to show thai the
defendants contemplate publishing any other yOlu &c,
or that the q, endsnts Barbour Little any Ia
teIest in connection WITH or control over any ot1or
manuscripts CT volumes OF reports except the tweny
fifth volume before referred 10. There s, therefore,
10 grounds for al injunction as to any other publ a.
tior. r
Motion for sn injunction is denied. The defendants
costs $40 TO abide event.
Before Jldse CLERSr.
F.IsE PRETESsE CASE.