Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

it is to revise and declare the law, the means of arriving at more correct results.

With this view, I have introduced into this work a discussion on the general doctrine of the English cases in relation to abridgments, which I consider contrary to principle. Should my observations induce any tribunal to reëxamine that doctrine, they will not have been published in vain.

It did not fall within the scope of this work, to discuss the reasonableness and justice of an international copyright. As between England and the United States I do not see how there can well be two opinions upon the desirableness of such an arrangement. The injustice of the present state of things to authors, especially in my own profession, is palpable and flagrant. The materials for an argument upon this question, which will be incapable of being answered, are fast accumulating, in the numerous proofs of mutual advantages obtained by those publishers in both countries, who have effected arrangements for the exchange and sale of their respective publications. These arrangements, however, rest upon no other security than the courtesy of “the trade,” and can never effectually answer the purpose of a law securing the profits on American books in England and on English books in the United States. But this is not the place to enter upon the discussion of this

interesting topic. I can only express the hope of seeing the argument at no distant day presented by some one, who will do justice to its great importance. But I could not dismiss this work from my hands, without avowing myself an advocate of an international copyright, both upon grounds of general policy, and of justice to authors.

Boston, October, 1847.

INDEX OF CASES CITED.

Page.

Page. Cary v. Kearsley 224, 241, 254, 256

| Chappel v. Purday 135, 136, 138 Abernethy v. Hutchinson 102 Clayton v. Stone

108 Anonymous, (Lofft's R.) 191, 267 Clementi v. Goulding

107 Atkins's Case

40, 126 — v. Walker 108, 138, 221 B.

Colburn v. Simms 328, 329

Coleman v. Walthen 104, 300 Bach v. Longman 108, 135 Crutwell v. Lye

110, 294 Bailey v. Taylor

177, 319 Cumberland v. Planché 140, 232 Barfield v. Nicholson Barnett v. Glassop

221 Baskett v. The University of Cambridge 49, 117, 126, 127 D'Almaine v. Boosey 135, 136, 138, - v. Cunningham 49, 127

281, 282, 301 Beckford v. Hood

198, 306 De Berenger v. Wheble 115,301 302 Bell v. Locke 110 Denis v. LeClerc

94 - v. Walker 191, 268, 325 Dodsley v. Kinnersley 191, 246, 267 - v. Whitehead 245, 246, 324 Donaldson v. Becket 58, 84, 159 Bentley v. Foster

135 | DuBost v. Beresford 115, 164 Binns v. Woodruff

146 Duke of Queensbury v. ShebBlackwell v. Harper 114, 202 beare

52 Bramhall v. Halcombe 244, 272, 316 Brandreth v. Lance

93

E. Brooks v. Cock

202 Burnett v. Chetwood 189, 291 Emerson v. Davies 173,238, 254, 258, Butterworth v. Robinson 132, 191,

260, 261, 272, 274, 286

268, 325 Ewer v. Cox Byron v. Johnson

299 Eyre v. Strahan & Carnan 124, 126

- v. Walker

196

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Campbell v. Scott 243, 251, 277, 321
Carnan v. Bowles 234, 254, 256, 277, Folsom v. Marsh 87, 88, 92, 94, 99,

321, 325

217, 238, 248, 265, 277 Cary v. Faden 175, 254 Fores v, Johnes

115, 150 - 0. Longman 175, 254, 256, Forrester v. Waller 50, 84, 159

258, 264 Fradella v. Weller

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

- Page..

Page.
Mawman v. Tegg 224, 226, 254,

255, 256, 265, 272, 277,
Gale v. Leckie

230

315, 316, 319, 320, 323
Gee v. Pritchard 91, 92, 94, 159 Millar v. Taylor 26, 28, 29, 30, 31,
Gilliver v. Snaggs

316 L 32, 38, 43, 44, 48, 54, 84, 117
Granard (Earl of) v. Dunkin 87, 159 - 0. Donaldson

55
Gray v. Russell 133, 179, 254, 256, Morris v. Kelley 225, 300, 316

260, 261, 269, 272, 274 Motte v. Falkner
Grierson v. Eyre
319 Murray v. Benbow

154
-- v. Jackson

125

- v. Elliston 104, 300
Gurney v. Longman

129
Gyles v. Wilcox

191,266

47, 184

[ocr errors]

H.

Nicol v. Stockdale 224, 225
Harrison v. Hogg

202

P.
Hime v. Dale® 107, 152, 163
Hogg v. Kirby 110, 174, 254, 294, Page v. Townsend

139
297, 315 Perceval v. Phipps 91, 92, 93, 159
Pierpont v. Fowle

234
Planché v. Braham

301
- -v. Colburn

230
Jeffreys v. Baldwin

41 Platt v. Button 108, 221, 319
Ponder v. Bradyl

36
Pope v. Curl 84, 87, 90, 159

Power v. Walker 220, 221, 223
Keane v. Harris 231, 294, 297
Kelly v. Hooper

327
King (The) v. Clement 129
King v. Reed

184 Queensbury (Duke of) v. Sheb-
beare

52, 84, 86, 87
L.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Latour v. Bland

221
Lawrence v. Smith 149, 152, 154, Read v. Hodges

266
165, 315, 318 Rennet v. Thompson

234
Lewis v. Fullerton 184, 249, 264, Roper v. Streater

40, 126
272, 321 Roworth v. Wilkes 113, 114, 202,
Longman v. Winchester 176, 254,

246, 254, 256, 302
255, 258 Rundell v. Murray 219, 222, 315,
- - v. Trip

231

319

M.

s.
Macklin v. Richardson 84, 87, 103 Sayre v. Moore 172, 176, 254, 257
Manley v. Owen

51, 84 Saunders v. Smith 132, 250
Manners v. Blair 118, 119, 125, 127, Sawyer v. Dicey

201
128 Sheriff v. Coates

319
Martin v. Wright

242, 304 Spottiswood v. Clarke 294, 296, 317
Matthewson v. Stockdale 176, 242, Southey v. Sherwood 84, 88, 94,
254, 256, 258, 260

156, 157, 318

223

[ocr errors]

226

Page.

Page.
Stationers' Co. v. Carnan 128

V.
- v. Parker 42, 126
- v. Seymour 41, 128 Vanness v. Packard

74
Stockdale v. Onwhyn
150 Vesey v. Sweet

132
Storace v. Longman
Sweet v. Archbold

231
v. Cater
- v. Maugham
325 Walcott v. Walker

164
_ v. Shaw 224, 226, 251 Walthoe v. Walker

47
| Webb v. Powers

287, 326
- v. Rose

50, 84, 159
West v. Francis

113, 302
Thompson v. Stanhope 87, 88, 91 Wheaton v. Peters 74, 75, 76, 80,
- v. Symonds 112, 202

81, 84, 132, 158, 160, 194
Tonson v. Collins 31, 53, 55 White v. Gerooch

8 8, 160
- v. Walker 34, 47, 48, 245, Whittingham v. Wooler 245, 325

254 Wilkins v. Aikin 113, 115, 176, 245,
Trussler v. Murray 184, 254, 257 254, 258, 260, 277, 302, 315, 316

Wright v. Tallis
Wyatt v. Barnard 177, 186, 260,

291
Universities of Oxford and Cam-

bridge v. Richardson 118, 316, 318

167

[ocr errors]
« ZurückWeiter »