Court Opinion

ID: 9833263
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:34:14.855865+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:01.033929
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
After a very careful reconsideration of the case on appellee’s motion for rehearing, we find no reason to change our decision.
Appellee insists that our decision conflicts with that of the Texarkana Oouft of Civil Appeals rendered in Vernon Abstract Co. v. Waggoner Title Co., 49 Tex. Civ. App. 144, 107 S. W. 919. It is not clear .that the decisions conflict with each other, in that the decision in the instant case turns on the question of unfair business competition. This question was not prominent in the case discussed by the Texarkana court.
The general rules of the law announced by the Texarkana court are not denied by *864this court, in fact were affirmed -and rean-nounced. However, another element entered ; that is to say, the question of unfair competition, upon which we decided this case without regard to the general question of property in news items or in unpublished works, as it exists at common law, and without regard to the copyright act, even if the provisions of the act are applicable to news items such as aré under consideration, which, in our opinion, is not the case.
As stated in the original opinion, we followed and applied to this case the doctrine announced by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U. S. 215, 39 S. Ct. 68, 63 L. Ed. 211, 2 A. L. R. 293, which was decided December 23, 1918, more than ten years after the decision by the Texarkana court in the case of Vernon Abstract Co. v. Waggoner Title Co., supra.
We will indulge the presumption that the Texarkana court would have followed the doctrine announced by the Supreme Court of the United States if its decision had been extant at the time; that is to say, if the case, as presented, called for the application of the doctrine.
As this appeal is from an interlocutory order, it is a matter of importance to all concerned that the case be tried on its merits at as early a date as is practicable. For these different reasons, we do not feel called upon to certify, the case to the Supreme Court.
Appellee’s motion for rehearing will be overruled.
Overruled.