The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1870-06-21
COURT Of COMMON PLEAS CHAMBERS.
Selling ssDevotion TO the Blessed Virgin in
North Observation-Disclosures Question of
Copyrisht-S5 900 Damages Claimed.

Selling ssDevotion TO the Blessed Virgin in
North America''-Interesting Question of
Cepyrisht-S5O,OO Damages Claimed.
Before Judge Loew.
John Z. Foley ana another rs. Wtlltdna A. Virtue
ana anOther.-Tbis was q motion to vacate an
attachment. 1t appeared that In the latter part Of
the year 1865 the plaintiffs entered into contract
with defendants by which the former were to have
the exclusive sale OF book known as the devotion
to the Blessed Virgin in North America" throughout
the United States except California. 1t further ap
peared that at the time of making said contract and
for several years prior thereto the defendants
had been publishing and selling large
quarto work entitled the 'Life Of the Virgin
Mary,n and that the devotion to the Blessed
Virgin was added thereto as an appendix and was
sold with it as part OF the same work. 1t also APP
peared that one Of the plaintiffs had himself been
engaged in purchasing from the defendants ana
selling the last mentioned work, including SAID ap-
pendlx. The plaintiffs claimed that by the terms OF
the above contract they not only entitled to the
exclusive sale OF the DEVOTION" put that the de-
PENDANTS we're precluded from appendiDg IL to any
other work, and that therefore, the con lnued pub
fishing and selling OF the life OF the Virgin Mary
with the appendix OF the "Devotion, as well as the
disposition OF number or copies of the latter work
separate was breach OF said contract, ana they
accordingly brought an action in this court, in which
they claimed the SUM of $4,000 damages. An
attachment was obtained against defendants pro-
perty on the ground that one OF them was nom
IL.
attached and they subsequently, made motion to
vacate the same before Judge Van Worst, who re-
ferred II to John p. Crosby to take the proofs and
report.
the referee reported in substance that the plain
tifs had Of action and that the attachment
should be vacated. This motion was thereupon
made to confirm the referees report and vacate the
attachment.
Judge LOew now renders the following decsiOn:-
The attachment in this case was Issued on the
ground that OF the defendants does not reside in
this State. The TACT OF such non-residence ID not
tnd and fhA uvh n
tachment was obtained in other respects comes mp
t. the can sh s fas r. ma
appear to have acted In this matter upon the as
whereas It would seem that reference was ordered
only TOR the purpose Of taking proofs In respect to
the facts going to sustain or defeat the attach
ment. 1t may be that the referee Is correct,
and that no cause OF action exists in favor of the
paintiS against the defendants, but that question
cannot be tried in this summary mode, but must be
disposed OF in the regular way on the trial. We're
the rule otherwise the cause would IN effect be tried
on Its merits on mere motion to vacate the attach
ment. Nor do think that the Court has the power
to discharge the attachment upon the defendants
giving nominal security, as was claimed by their
counsel on the argument. Before they are entitled
to an order directing that the attachment be dis
charged they must give security IN double the
amount Of plaintiffs claim; or, II the claim De greater
than the value OF the property attached, they may
and then cause to be executed an undertaking in
double the amount 80 appraised. This may prove q
hardship in cases where the defendant Is unable to
furnish the requisite security and 1t finally turns
out, as Is claimed in TINS case that no cause exists
against the defendants; but ! see no other way in
which the attachment can De discharged before
trial and judgment in a case like the present.
Motion denied.