MYBBS W. CALLAGHAN. 727 �publislied a large number of copies of eaeh of these last- named volumes, and still bas the copyright, to ail bis vol- umes of reports from 32 to 46, imcliisive.' In 1877 the plain- tif reprinted volumes 37 and 38, and, as same changes were made in the arrangement of paging the books, a copy of the printed title of eaoh volume, and aftervfrards copies of the
- books themselves, were deposited in the office of the librarian
of congress. The defendants had fuU knowledge of the exclu- sive rights of the plaintiff, and attemptedto buy the same from him, but refused to paythe price demanded, and tbere- upon reprinted and published the volumes 82 to 38, inclusive, using the material contained in, the volumes of the plaintitf, ■tbereby violating the law of congress upon the subject ôf copyright ; not confining themselves to the use of the opinions -of the court, but using the head-notea and statements of cases prepared by Mr. Freeman, making colorable changes, thus trying to avoid the plaintiff 's rights under the law. The de- fendants threaten also to republish other volumes copyrighted by the plaintiff, viz ., volumes 39 to 46, inclusive, of said reports. These acts, done and threatened by the defendants, have «aused and will cause damage to thie plaintiff, and therefore he asks that the defendants may be^enjoined from publishing -or selling any of the said books, and that the same so pub- lished may be forfeited to him, and that the defendants be required to deliver them up, andthftt an accotmt may be ren- 4ered by the defendants of ail the books published or sold, and that the defendants may pay the damage and costs whicb the plaintiff has sustained by their wrongf ul acts. �To this bill varions defences bave been set up. ^ It is claimed that these being volumes of reports by a reporter, aoting un- der the autbority of law as a public officer, are not the sub- ject of a copyright under the act. oj congress. It ia also -claimed, if they are the subject of copyright, the plaintiff ha not complied with the act of congress in the procurement of the copyright, and therefore none exista. It ia insisted, too* by the. defmdants, that the volumes whibh are charged to be an infringement of the plaintiff's, copyright, are themselves indepeudent productions of di#ecent seditors und annotators, ����
