Banks v. Manchester
Banks v. Manchester.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the
Southern District of Ohio.
No. 45. Submitted October 29, 1888.—Decided November 19, 1888.
Bill in equity, to restrain the defendant from infringing the plaintiffs’ copyright. The defendant answered, and the complainants demurred to the answer. Decree dismissing the bill, from which plaintiffs appealed. The case is stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. Edward L. Taylor, for appellants, cited: United States v. Hillegas’s Executors, 3 Wash. C. C. 70; Hines v. North Carolina, 10 Sm. & Marsh. 529; Mexico v. De Arangois, 5 Duer (N. Y.) 634; Wheaton v. Peters, 8 Pet. 591; Banks v. De Witt, 42 Ohio St. 264; Little v. Gould, 2 Blatchford, 362; Stationers v. Patentees about the Printing of Rolls’ Abridgment, Carter, 89; Millar v. Taylor, 4 Burrow, 2383; Basket v. University of Cambridge, 1 Wm. Bl. 105; Myers v. Callaghan, 5 Fed. Rep. 726; Gould v. Banks, 53 Conn. 415; Banks v. West Publishing Co., 27 Fed. Rep. 50.
Mr. Richard A. Harrison, for appellee, cited: United States v. Rhodes, 1 Abbott (U. S.) 28; People v. Imlay, 20 Barb. 68; Gendell v. Orr, 13 Phila. 191; Miller v. Taylor, 4 Burrow, 2383; Lindsley v. Coats, 10 Ohio, 243; King v. Beck, 15 Ohio, 559; Banks v. West Publishing Co., 27 Fed. Rep. 50; Myers v. Callaghan, 5 Fed. Rep. 726; Nash v. Lathrop, 142 Mass. 29; Atwill v. Ferrett, 2 Blatchford, 39; Connecticut v. Gould, 34 Fed. Rep. 319; Gould v. Banks, 53 Conn. 415; Davidson v. Wheelock, 27 Fed. Rep. 61; Chase v. Sanborn, 4 Cliff. 306; Myers v. Callaghan, 20 Fed. Rep. 441; Banks v. Manchester, 23 Fed. Rep. 143.
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