Stevens v. Gladding (60 U.S. 64)

From Wikisource
(Redirected from 60 U.S. 64)
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Stevens v. Gladding (60 U.S. 64)
Syllabus by John McLean
705080Stevens v. Gladding (60 U.S. 64) — SyllabusJohn McLean
Court Documents

United States Supreme Court

60 U.S. 64

Stevens  v.  Gladding

THIS case was brought up, by writ of error, from the Circuit Court of the United States for the district of Rhode Island.

The plaintiff in error, Stevens, was the same person who was the appellant in the case of Stevens v. Cady, reported in 14 Howard, 529.

In the present suit, he brought an action, being a citizen of Connecticut, against Gladding & Proud, booksellers of Providence, in Rhode Island. It was a qui tam action in which he claimed two thousand dollars, because the defendants published and sold two thousand copies of his map of the State of Rhode Island, for which he had obtained a copyright.

The defendants pleaded not guilty, and the case went on to trial before a jury, who found a verdict for the defendants. In the progress of the trial, there was no prayer to the court to instruct the jury upon a matter of law, nor any bill of exceptions whatever.

Stevens managed the case for himself, and it would be difficult to conjecture the reason for suing out a writ of error, if it were not for the following assignment of error which was attached to the record:

This was a qui tam action at law, in debt, for the forfeitures and penalties incurred by the defendants for the violation of a copyright granted to the plaintiff in error, on the 23d day of April, 1831, under an act of Congress entitled 'An act to amend the several acts respecting copyrights, approved 3d February, 1831.'

The plaintiff's title to this copyright is set forth in the declaration herein. The principal questions in this case are: Was the verdict and judgment correct? Was the sale of the engraved plates the sale of a copyright? Did such sale authorize the defendants, or any other person, to print and sell this literary production, still subsisting under a copyright in this complainant?

The very learned opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States, delivered by Mr. Justice Nelson, in bill in chancery, James Stevens v. Isaac H. Cady, 14 Howard, 528, is ample and decisive on this subject.

Notes

[edit]

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).

Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse