|
|
Mifflin v. Dutton, 190 U.S. 265 (1903)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Mifflin v. Dutton, 190 U.S. 265 (1903)
Mifflin v. Dutton No. 267 Argued April 30, May 1, 1903 Decided June 1, 1903 190 U.S. 265
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
Syllabus
The preceding case, Mifflin v. R. H. White Co., ante, p. 260, followed, and held that, under the Copyright Act of 1831, the authorized appearance of an author’s work in a magazine without the statutory notice of copyright specially applicable thereto makes it public property and vitiates the copyright previously taken out by the author, and that the copyright of the magazine under its own title by the publisher is not a compliance, so far as the authors are concerned, with the statutory requirements as to notice of copyright in the several copies of each and every edition published.
This was a bill in equity by the firm of Houghton, Mifflin & Co., assignees of the late Harriet Beecher Stowe, against the firm of Houghton & Dutton, for a violation of the copyright of the "Minister’s Wooing," by Mrs. Stowe.
The "Minister’s Wooing" appeared serially in the Atlantic Monthly during the year 1859. The contract between Mrs. Stowe and her publishers, Phillips, Sampson & Co., after reciting that Mrs. Stowe was the author and owned the copyright of and right to publish the book gave to Phillips, Sampson & Co. "the sole and exclusive right to publish the same in this country." After the first twenty-nine chapters had appeared in the first ten numbers of the Atlantic Monthly for the year 1859, the author published the whole work in book form on October 15, 1859, and took proper steps to secure the copyright, notice of which was given in the name of Harriet Beecher Stowe. At the date of this publication, the last thirteen chapters had not been elsewhere published, but subsequently appeared in the November and December numbers, which were copyrighted by Ticknor & Fields, to whom the Atlantic Monthly had been sold, and in accordance with an arrangement with Mrs. Stowe, by which the contract between her and Phillips, Sampson & Co. was assigned to Ticknor & Fields.
Upon this state of facts, the circuit court dismissed the bill, and, upon appeal to the circuit court of appeals, that court affirmed the decree. Both this and the preceding case were covered by the same opinion.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Mifflin v. Dutton, 190 U.S. 265 (1903) in 190 U.S. 265 190 U.S. 266. Original Sources, accessed November 22, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=SL34UAJVHKK82VX.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Mifflin v. Dutton, 190 U.S. 265 (1903), in 190 U.S. 265, page 190 U.S. 266. Original Sources. 22 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=SL34UAJVHKK82VX.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Mifflin v. Dutton, 190 U.S. 265 (1903). cited in 1903, 190 U.S. 265, pp.190 U.S. 266. Original Sources, retrieved 22 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=SL34UAJVHKK82VX.
|