GRIGGS t1. PEl\RIN.
15
GRIGGS ".
PE1mIN fit at.
(C'WouU Oourt, N. D. NewYo'l'k. FebruarrlJ, 1.89lI.)
The copyright of abOokdescribinjf a new system of stenography' 'does Dot llt'O" teet tbe system,when coniidered simply as a system apart from the language by which iUs explained, so as to make the illustration byanotber of the same system in a diferent book; el)1plo11ng totally different language, an infringement. .
....
. .'
..
In Equity. Motion injunction. Denied. Th&el:)lllplainantis:the ownerofa copyright of a book, written by, J. George Cross, entitled;" »-lectic ,At the January term, 1890, a motion was made for a preliminary injunction. The defendants denied infringement. The issue thus raised was referred to a master to take proofs and report. The master reported that the complainant's work as a literary production only was protected; that the system of phonetic writing explltinetl in the book not the subject of a copyright; and that there is no proof that the defendants have copied complainant's book considered merely aEl Ii literary production.' . The master says: II My conclusion, therefore, that while the matter explanatory of the systeID , whether,the; systemis >Qld one or.new and original, is the !,!ubject of a illustrates is not the subject of a copyright;UUit there being noproof·tbat the copyright of ,the Eclec4c is init merelyasrtn explanatory work, 'unless the copyright it an exclusive right 'w the sYliltem set forth, complainllnt is not entitled to the relief demanded." The master does not decide that the. d'8fen!lants have, copied the Complainant's systeUi, but he does. dedde,thaitl the copyright does not prevent them from, publishing a. different work explanatory of a similar system. The motion now comes, on to be heard again upon the master's report and exceptions thereto,.filed been by the complainant. Thetestimony taken by the master has printed or brought to the attention of the court. . Alfrw,.Wilkinson, for complaipant· .ArthurSt6't.£art, for ·defendants.
an
CoXE, District Jndge: The only question decided by the master and discussed at the argument is whether or not the copyright of abobkdescribing anew art or system of stenography protects the system"when eonsideredsimplyas a. system, apart from the language by which thesystem is explained, so that another who illustrates the same a difl'erent book, employing totally different language, can be an infringer. It is thought, upon the authority of Baker v. Selden, 101U. 8.99, that the master Was right in the conclusion reached ,by him. A ;party imay invent a new machine 'and write a book describing it for which he may obtain a copyright. This does not prevent another authorifrbt'Ddescribing the same machine. He mllst not copy the copyown. S!l with a process1 a system or an art, the fact that one person has described it and obtained
16
FEDEl'tAl.
vol. 49.
a copyright for his description does not prevent others from describing the same art in their OWI11anguage·.. The copyright book is sacred, but not the subject of which it treats. If the delEmdants have described the complainant'ss)istllm they have not offended, for that reason only, against the copyright law. If they have copied complainant's book they have offended against that law. As the complainant has no right to fl, monopoly of the art of short-hand writing, because he has written a bookexplanatO,ry of th.a,t art as developed by him, and as*ere is insufficient proof to show that the defendants' have copied the complainant's book, considered apart from complainant's system, it follows that the exceptions disputing the master's conclusion of law must bo .overruled motion for a. preliminary injunction denied. and
REID·. v MCCALLISTER
d tw.
(Ctrcw£t Cowrt, D. Oregon. April 24, 1885.)
In a suit to enforoe the lien of a mortgage against a husband and wife, the wife answered,admitting that she signed the instrument, .but only upon the false and , framl,ulent representations of the oomplainant's agent, who obtained her signature and'acknowledgment, and that she was ignorant, and unable to read. A /i{eneral replica,tion was filed, and cause was heard on the pleadings alone. Held, that the allegations of fraud were'not DeW matter in avoidance. but were responsive to the bill,., and were suOicient to ptovethat the wife did not execute the mortgage.
AS EVIDENOB-MORTGAGE PROOURED BY FRAUD.
In EqUity. . Bill by William Reid to' foreclose a. mortgage against Hardin McOallister and Julia McCallister, his wife. Heard on the pleadings without other evidence.. ' Bill dismissed. Ellis Go' Hughes, for plaintiff. Henry Ach,for defendallt Julia McCallister. DEADY, District Judge. This suit is brou/il;ht to enforce the lien of a mortgage executed by the defendants on November 25, 1879, on 408 acres of land in Marion county, as a security for a loan of $7,000, to the defendant Hardin McCallister, the husband of the defendant Julia. McCallister. The bill was taken for confessed as against the former, but the wife answered) alleging that one.-half the premises belonged to her, and admittingthat she. signed . the instrument, but only upon the false and fraudulent representation of the plaintiff's agent, who obtained her sigof the same; that the nature thereto and took her .mortgage did not include her portion of the premises, but only that of her husband; and that she was an ignorant woman, and unable to read or write. , ,To this answer therewas a general replication, and afterwards the case was heard on the pleadings) without any evidence other than that con:iained therein.