The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1858-01-19

SOfhhhh COuhI.
JAN. 1s.-Wilson Eyre and Louisa Lincoln Lear Eyre,
his wife, Us. EdDard Y Hig1ee and Fanny L. Higoee, his
sc1e.-The complaint alleges that Tobias Lear, in his life,
was the owner and possessor of a large number of letters
addressed TO him by Gen. Washington from 1890 TO 1899;
that said Tobias Lear continued TO possess the same until
his death, in 1916; that they remained in his family until
the month of September, 1856, when they were delivered
10 Mrs. Higbee, for a special purpose, by the widow of
tobias Lear. The plaintiff, Louisa Lincoln Lear Eyre, is
the second daughter of Tobias Lear, and claims these
~leters-which have been collected and bound into a
volume-as her property. The complaint AYERS that
neither of the defendants has ever been authorized by
the widow of Tobias Lear TO take possession Of said letters.
HE complaint also AYERS that the plaintiff, Louisa Lincoln
Lear Eyre, is now the sole owner of the said volume of
Letters, and has demanded the same of the defendants,
whe have refused TO deliver the same TO her.
To this the defendant demurs, upon three grounds
i. Because the representatives Of Gen. washington are
not made parties.
!. That the lapse of time since the death of Tobias Lear
serms an equitable and legal bar to the claim Of the
3. Because the complaint does not state facts sufficient
- constitute q cause Of action.
DAWES, Justice.@I shall conine myself, in the DISPOSE
tion Of this demurrer, to the question whether the recipi-
ent of a letter has any property therein If Tobias Lear,
~ the person 10 whom the letters were addressed, had
any property in them then the averment in the complaint,
and which rs admitted by the demurrer, that the plaintiff,
Mrs. Eyre, is now the sole owner OF the letters, would
make that property hers. IfLear had any property in the
letters, IL follows, from the admission In the pleatlngs,
that that property N now vested IN ms granddaughter.
think the rule laid down by Lord Hardwicke, in the case
Of Pope vs.. Curt, has always been regarded as the correct
one that I" IL is only a especial property in the receiver.
Possibly the property in the paper may belong TO him,
but thai does not give a license 10 any person whatever 10
pub n them (tte letters) 10 the world, for NJ most the
receiver has only n joint property with the writer"
These views are rear1rmed and adopted IN the opin-
tn of Justice Duer, OF the superior Court, IN the
ease of woolsey VS.. Judd, 18th Howell's Reports, 40.
! think the principle deducible from all the cases Is that
ME writer had such a. property and such only as
would enable him 70 restrain the publication or tue let
ters: and 4 a consent TO such publication had ever been
made, or no objection made by the writer, a stranger
nay not say that the recipient cannot do with them as he
pleases. Judge Duer held that ihe receiver Of q letter
may publish where rs publication appears 10 be necessary
pr the viadicatoH Of his character or his rights or con
duet, but the license has never been extended 70 a person
who has acquired possession Of a letter, or a copy, without
the consent Of the writer or the recipient IL follows, /
mink, hat the recipient OF a letter has a property therein.
THIS case does not call for any adjudication as othe rights
OF the writer; the defendants making no claims 10 the let
trs through him, these rights have thus far only been
held TO warrant the writer, or his representative, TO re-
strain the publication without his consent The Judge re-
frred 10 a number Of decisions by lord Elton ana other
authorities in equity, The demurrer must therefore DO
cverrulcd, with leave to amend ON payment OF costs,