Case Name: T. B. HARMS & FRANCIS, HAY & HUNTER v. STERN et al.
Court: United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1915-04-15
Citations: 222 F. 581
Docket Number: 
Parties: T. B. HARMS & FRANCIS, HAY & HUNTER v. STERN et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 222
Pages: 581–584

Head Matter:
T. B. HARMS & FRANCIS, HAY & HUNTER v. STERN et al.
(District Court, S. D. New York.
April 15, 1915.
On Rehearing, May 8, 1915.)
1. Contracts <&wkey;>138 — Validity at Haw — Sphoimo Performance.
A contract between a music publisher and a composer, which vests in the publisher the exclusive right to publish the composer’s work produced within a specified period, and which binds the publisher to exert influence in the interest of the composer, so that he may receive English librettos for composition purposes, and to execute contracts for him with theatrical managers for a commission, and to pay royalties, is valid at law, though equity may not specifically enforce it.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Contracts, Cent. Dig. §§ 681-700; Dee. Dig. <&wkey;>138.]
2. Injunction <&wkey;137 — Tempobaby Injunction — Issue of Fact.
Where an issue of fact is raised, the court will not resolve the issue in favor of the party applying for an injunction.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Injunction, Cent. Dig. §§ 307-809; Dec. Dig. i&wkey;137.j
On Rehearing.
8. Specific Peufobmance <&wkey;>25 — Validity of Contract — Enforceability.
A contract may be valid, and yet not enforceable in equity.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Specific' Performance, Cent. Dig. §§ 56-58, 60; Dec. Dig. &wkey;25.j
4. Contracts <&wkey;9 — Validity—Definiteness.
A contract is not too vague to be enforceable at law so long as the acts which make up performance are expressed definitely enough so that the court can tell when the promisor has fulfilled, and when he has not, though it may be that the damages arising from failure to perform cannot be measured.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Contracts, Cent. Dig. §§ 10-20; Dec. Dig. <&wkey;>9.]
5. Contracts <&wkey;9 — Validity—Definiteness.
A contract between music publishers and a composer, whereby the composer vests in the publisher the exclusive right of publication of all his works composed during a specified period, and whereby the publisher assumes the obligation of exerting his influence in the interest of the composer, so that he may receive English librettos for composition purposes, and may come in contact with the most important theatrical managers, and to execute contracts for him with theatrical managers for a commission, and to pay royalties, imposes on the publisher the duty to do his best to procure for the composer all English librettos and Introduce his works to the best managers, and, on the composer writing any music, get it before the best theatrical managers for their perusal, or, If not, to show why he cannot, and, so construed, is not void for uncertainty.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, se,e Contracts, Cent. Dig. §§ 10-20; Doc. Dig. <&wkey;>9.]
C. Copyrights <&wkey;76 — Infringement—Remedy in Equity.
Where a composer vests by valid contract in music publishers the exclusive publishing rights of all his compositions for a specified period, neither he nor an assignee with notice of the contract can seek relief in equity for the publishers’ infringement of copyright, on the composer and his assignee violating the right of the publishers to give them exclusive publishing rights.
[Ed. Nóte. — For other cases, see Copyrights, Cent. Dig. § 68; Dec. Dig. &wkey;76.j
Suit by T. B. Harms & Francis, Day & Hunter against Joseph W. Stern and Edward B. Marks, copartners doing business under the firm name and style of Joseph W. Stern & Co.
Injunction denied.
This is an ordinary action for infringement of copyright, brought by plaintiff, a New York corporation, against defendants, music publishers in New York City, because of publication by defendants of the mu.sic of a musical composition composed by one Sigmund Romberg, entitled “Oh, Those Days.” Defendants had entered into an agreement with Mr. Romberg in August, 1913, by which he vested in defendants the exclusive publishing rights for all countries of all his works and compositions which he might produce during the course of five years from the date of the contract, and by which defendants assumed the obligation to exert their influence in the interest of Mr. Romberg, in order that he might receive English librettos for composition purposes, and that he might come in contact with the most important theatrical managers, and to conduct business transactions for him, and to collect for him all production royalties due him, and to execute contracts for him with theatrical managers of all countries for a commission, and to pay him royalties. Mr. Romberg repudiated his agreement, and plaintiff claimed to be the owner of the copyright of the composition “Oh, Those Days,” by assignment from Mr. Romberg, subsequent to the agreement with defendants.
Max D. Josephson, of New York City, for plaintiff.
Theodore B. Richter, of New York City, for defendants.

Opinion:
EEARNED HAND, District Judge.
The defendants' contract was valid at law, though equity would not specifically enforce its performance. Romberg could not be put in jail, if he performed his songs, or if he refused to malee an assignment of his literary property; but the obligation to assign was valid, and the obligees might get a judgment for damages at law for his failure to perform. The agreement, though in .words of present assignment, could not operate at • once, because the subject-matter had not come into existence; but, when Romberg composed the song, it did come into existence, and was at least valid as an executory contract to assign, whether enforceable only at law or not. Furthermore, it operated as a license to the defendants to publish the song, as between themselves and Romberg, and, at least as against any one who took with notice, it was as binding as between Romberg and the defendants. I do not mean to decide how far it would operate as a license independently of such notice, because that question is not presented.
Romberg's first assignee was the Wintergarden Company, and they had ample notice, before the song was composed, that there was some agreement between Romberg and the defendants,- Their own agreement with the defendants they appear to have disregarded. It is true that Dreyfus, the plaintiff's president, swears that the plaintiff had no notice of the agreement; but the defendants present the most persuasive evidence to the contrary. In any case the question raises an issue of fact, which I shall not resolve in favor of the party applying for the injunction.
Motion denied.