[178] Blanchett v. Ingram (1887), 3 T. L. R., 687.
[179] (1819), 2 B. and Ald., 298.
[180] (1876), 5 Ch. D., 267.
[181] Turner v. Robinson (1860), 10 Ir. Ch. R., 121, 510.
[182] Clementi v. Walker (1824), 2 Bar and Cres., 861.
[183] Routledge v. Low (1868), L. R., 3 H. L., 100; Jeffreys v. Boosey (1854), 4 H. L. C., 815; Boosey v. Purday (1849), 4 Ex., 145; Chappell v. Purday (1845), 14 M. and W., 303; Cocks v. Purday (1848), 5 C. B., 860.
[184] 49 & 50 Vict. c. 33, sec. 8 (1).
[185] Cocks v. Purday (1848), 5 C. B., 860; Buxton v. James (1851), 5 De G. and S., 80.
[186] Reid v. Maxwell (1886), 2 T. L. R., 790.
[187] Lover v. Davidson (1856), 1 C. B. (N. S.), 182.
[188] Buxton v. James (1851), 5 De. G. and S., 80; as to author's nationality or residence, see p. 42.
[189] (1854), 4 H. L. C., at p. 983.
[190] (1824), 2 B. and C., 861, at p. 867.
[191] 7 & 8 Vict. c. 12, sec. 19.
[193] Boucicault v. Delafield (1863), 1 H. and M., 597; Boucicault v. Chatterton (1876), 5 Ch. D., 267.
[194] Boucicault v. Delafield (1863), 1 H. and M., 597; Boucicault v. Chatterton (1876), 5 Ch. D., 267; Ex p. Dobson (1892), 12 N. Z. L. R., 171.
[195] Boucicault v. Chatterton (1876), 5 Ch. D., 267.
[196] (1849), 13 Q. B., 257.
[197] D'Almaine v. Boosey (1835), 1 Y. and C. Ex., 288; see Willes, J., in Millar v. Taylor (1769), 4 Burr., at p. 2310; Delondre v. Shaw (1828), 2 Sim., 240.
[198] (1839), 10 Sim., 329.
[199] Chappell v. Purday (1845), 14 M. and W., 303; Cocks v. Purday (1848), 5 C. B., 860; Boosey v. Davidson (1849), 13 Q. B., 257; Boosey v. Purday (1849), 4 Ex., 145; Ollendorff v. Black (1850), 20 L. T., 165; Boosey v. Jefferys (1851), 6 Ex., 580; Buxton v. James (1851), 5 De G. and Sm., 80.
[200] (1854), 4 H. L. C., 815.
[201] (1854), 4 H. L. C., 815.
[202] (1868), L. R., 3 H. L., 100.
[203] (1854), 4 H. L. C., 815.
[204] Ibid.
[205] The Fine Arts Act, 1862, is expressly confined to the works of authors who are British subjects or resident within the Dominions of the Crown; 25 & 26 Vict. c. 68.
[206] (1854), 4 H. L. C., 815.
[207] Ibid.
[208] (1868), L. R., 3 H. L., 100.
[209] (1868), L. R., 6 Eq., 415.
[210] (1868), L. R., 3 H. L., 100.
[211] (1854), 4 H. L. C., 815.
[212] Art. 6, "Report Copyright Commission," 1878, p. lxix.
[213] Scrutton on "Copyright," 3rd ed., p. 121.
[214] Chamier on "Literary Copyright," p. 13.
[215] Lawrence v. Smith (1822), Jac., 471; Murray v. Benbow (1822), Jac., 474 n.; Cowan v. Milbourn (1867), L. R., 2 Exch., 230; Burnett v. Chetwood (1720), 2 Mer., 441; see 9 Will. III. c. 35 (1698).
[216] Stockdale v. Onwhyn (1826), 5 B. and Cr., 173; Dodson v. Martin (1880), 24 Sol. J., 572.
[217] Hime v. Dale (1803), 2 Camp., 27 n.; Dr. Priestley's case, cited 2 Mer., 437.
[218] Hime v. Dale (1803), 2 Camp., 27 n.; Walcot v. Walker (1802), 7 Ves., 1.
[219] Wright v. Tallis (1845), 1 C. B., 893; Hogg v. Kirby (1803), 8 Ves., 215; MacFarlane v. Oak Foundry (1883), 10 R., 801; Hayward v. Lely (1887), 56 L. T. (N. S.), 418; Ward v. Beeton (1874), L. R., 19 Eq., 207; Metzler v. Wood (1878), 8 Ch. D., 606; Chappell v. Davidson (1856), 2 K. and J., 123.
[220] Wright v. Tallis (1845), 1 C. B., 893.
[221] Cary v. Faden (1799), 5 Ves., 24; Reade v. Conquest (1862), 11 C. B. (N. S.), at p. 492.
[222] Baschet v. London Illustrated [1900], 1 Ch., 73; Hayward v. Lely (1887), 56 L. T. (N. S.), 418.
[223] See point suggested, 1 C. B., 902.
[224] Baschet v. London Illustrated [1900], 1 Ch., 73; Newman v. Pinto (1887), L. T. (N. S.), 31.
[225] Dodson v. Martin (1880), 24 Sol. J., 572.
[226] 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, secs. 11, 13, 24.
[227] 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, sec. 24.
[228] Beckford v. Hood (1798), 7 T. R., 620; Roworth v. Wilkes (1807), 1 Camp., 94.
[229] Low v. Routledge (1864), L. R., 1 Ch., 42; Stannard v. Lee (1871), L. R., 6 Ch., 346; Hogg v. Scott (1874), L. R., 18 Eq., 444.
[230] Russell v. Smith (1848), 12 Q. B., 217; Lacy v. Rhys (1864), 4 B. and S., 873; Marsh v. Conquest (1864), 17 C. B. (N. S.), 418; Clark v. Bishop (1872), 25 L. T., 908.
[231] Goubaud v. Wallace (1877), 36 L. T. (N. S.), 704; Macmillan v. Suresh Chunder Deb (1890), Ind. L. R., 17 Calc., 951.
[232] Warne v. Lawrence (1886), 34 W. R., 452.
[233] (1879), 12 Ch. D., 886.
[234] (1880), 49 L. J. Ch., 412.
[235] Henderson v. Maxwell (1877). 5 Ch. D., 892; Dicks v. Yates (1881), 18 Ch. D., 76.
[236] Hogg v. Maxwell (1866), L. R., 2 Ch., 307; Correspondent v. Saunders (1865), 11 Jur. (N. S.), 540; Primrose Press v. Knowles (1886), 2 T. L. R., 404.
[237] Talbot v. Judges (1887), 3 T. L. R., 398; Schove v. Schmincké (1886), 33 Ch. D., 546.
[238] (1889), 40 Ch. D., 425.
[239] Walter v. Howe (1881), 18 Ch. D., 708; Trade Auxiliary v. Middlesborough (1889), 40 Ch. D., 425; Cate v. Devon (1889), 40 Ch. D., 500.
[240] Cox v. Land and Water (1869), L. R., 9 Eq., 324.
[241] Trade Auxiliary v. Middlesborough (1889), 40 Ch. D., 425.
[242] (1889), 40 Ch. D., 500; see also Prowett v. Mortimer (1856), 2 Jur. (N. S.), 414.
[243] Chappell v. Davidson (1856), 18 C. B., 194. See 32 & 33 Vict. c. 24.
[244] 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, sec. 11.
[245] 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, sec. 13.
[246] 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, sec. 19.
[247] (1889), 5 T. L. R., 594.
[248] Per Coleridge, L. C. J., in Harris v. Smart (1889), 5 T. L. R., 594.
[249] (1887), 57 L. T. (N. S.), 864.
[250] Lover v. Davidson (1856), 1 C. B., (N. S.), 182; Leader v. Purday (1848), 7 C. B., 4; Chappell v. Sheard (1855), 2 K. and J., 117.
[251] (1889), 40 Ch. D., 500
[252] 40 Ch. D., at p. 506.
[253] (1864), 10 L. T. (N. S.), 838.
[254] As to what is publication, see p. 38.
[255] Wood v. Boosey (1867), L. R., 3 Q. B., 223.
[256] Mathieson v. Harrod (1868), L. R., 7 Eq., 270; Collingridge v. Emmott (1887), 57 L. T. (N. S.), 864; and see Page v. Wisden (1869), 20 L. T. (N. S.), 435; Maxwell v. Hogg (1867), L. R., 2 Ch., 307.
[257] Thomas v. Turner (1886), 33 Ch. D., 292.
[258] Murray v. Bogue (1852), 1 Drew, 353; Hayward v. Lely (1887), 56 L. T. (N. S.), 418.
[259] Maple v. Junior Army and Navy Stores (1882), 21 Ch. D., 369.
[260] Macmillan v. Suresh Chunder Deb (1890), Ind. L. R., 17 Calc., 951.
[261] Henderson v. Maxwell (1876), 4 Ch. D., 163.
[262] Johnson v. Newnes [1894], 3 Ch., 663.
[263] Mayhew v. Maxwell (1860), 1 J. and H., 312.
[264] Dicks v. Yates (1881), 18 Ch. D., 76; Trade Auxiliary v. Middlesborough (1889), 40 Ch. D., at p. 434.
[265] Bacon, V. C., in Coote v. Judd (1883), 23 Ch. D., 727.
[266] Weldon v. Dicks (1878), 10 Ch. D., 247.
[267] Weldon v. Dicks (1878), 10 Ch. D., 247; Rock v. Lazarus (1872), L. R., 15 Eq. 104; Macmillan v. Suresh Chunder Deb (1890), Ind. L. R., 17 Calc., 951.
[268] Nottage v. Jackson (1883), 11 Q. B. D., 627; 49 L. T. (N. S.), 339.
[269] Weldon v. Dicks (1878), 10 Ch. D., 247.
[270] London Printing v. Cox [1891], 3 Ch., 291.
[271] Petty v. Taylor [1897], 1 Ch., 465.
[272] London Printing v. Cox [1891], 3 Ch., per Lindley, L. J., at pp. 301 and 302.
[273] Liverpool General Brokers v. Commercial Press [1897], 2 Q. B., 1; Morang v. Publishers (1900), 32 Ont. Rep., 393.
[274] Weldon v. Dicks (1878), 10 Ch. D., 247.
[275] Low v. Routledge (1864), 33 L. J. Ch., 717; 10 L. T. (N. S.), 838.
[276] Lover v. Davidson (1856), 1 C. B. (N. S.), 182.
[277] Cassell v. Stiff (1856), 2 K. and J., 279.
[278] Fairlie v. Boosey (1879), 4 A. C., 711.
[279] 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, sec. 11; Hildesheimer & Faulkner v. Dunn (1891), 64 L. T. (N. S.), 452.
[280] Lucas v. Cooke (1880), 13 Ch. D., 872.
[281] 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, sec. 12.
[282] 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, sec. 14.
[283] Hole v. Bradbury (1879), 12 Ch. D., 886; 48 L. J. Ch., 673.
[284] In re The Young Duchess (1891), 8 T. L. R., 41.
[285] Ex parte Poulton (1884), 53 L. J., Q. B., 320; in re Hall (1899), 24 Vict. L. R., 702.
[286] Ex parte Davidson (1856), 18 C. B., 296; see in re Martin (1884), 10 Vict. L. R., Law., 196.
[287] Blackburn, J., Graves' case, 10 B. and S., at p. 688.
[288] Ex parte Bastow (1854), 14 C. B., 631.
[289] Ex parte Davidson (1856), 18 C. B., 296; Chappell v. Purday (1843), 12 M. and W., 303.
[290] Graves' case (1869), 4 Q. B., 715.
[291] Graves' case (1869), 4 Q. B., 715.
[292] Chappell v. Purday (1843), 12 M. and W., 303; ex parte Davidson (1856), 18 C. B., at p. 309.
[293] 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, sec. 10.
[294] Ibid.
[295] 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, sec. 6.
[296] 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, sec. 7.
[297] Ibid.
[298] 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, sec. 8.
[299] (1828), 4 Bing.. 540.
[300] Cf. Cambridge University v. Bryce (1812), 16 East., 317; Routledge v. Low (1868), L. R., 3 H. L., 100.
[301] 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, sec. 3.
[302] Ibid.
[303] 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, secs. 3, 18.
[304] 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, secs. 3, 18.
[305] See supra, p. 26.
[306] See Nottage v. Jackson (1883), 11 Q. B. D., 627.
[307] Caird v. Sime (1887), 12 A. C., 326; Nicols v. Pitman (1884), 26 Ch. D., 374; Abernethy v. Hutchinson (1825), 3 L. J. Ch., 209.
[308] 5 & 6 Will. IV. c. 65, sec. 5.
[309] Caird v. Sime (1887), 12 A. C., 326.
[310] See Millar v. Taylor (1769), 4 Burr., 2303, and cases there cited.
[311] Baskett v. University of Cambridge (1758), 2 Burr. 661; Baskett v. Cunningham (1762), Black. Rep., 370.
[312] See Grierson v. Jackson (1794), Ridg. Ir., T. R., 304; Nicol v. Stockdale (1785), 3 Swanst., 687.
[313] Universities v. Richardson (1802), 6 Ves., 689; Manners v. Blair (1828), 3 Bligh (N. S.), 391; Grierson v. Jackson (1794), Ridg. Ir., T. R., 304.
[314] Universities v. Richardson (1802), 6 Ves., 689; Eyre v. Carnan (1781), 6 Bac. Abr., 509; Manners v. Blair (1828), 3 Bligh (N. S.), 391.
[315] Baskett v. Cunningham (1762), Black. Rep., 370.
[316] See Appendix.
[317] 15 Geo. III. c. 53; 41 Geo. III. c. 107, extending the privilege to Dublin; 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, sec. 27.
[318] (1774), 2 Bro. P. C., 129.
[319] 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, sec. 3.
[320] This reservation is made necessary by the decision in Walter v. Lane [1900], A. C., 539, that the author is not necessarily the composer of the literary matter; see infra, p. 65.
[321] (1867), L. R., 3 Eq., 718; see also Nottage v. Jackson (1883), 11 Q. B. D., 627; Stannard v. Harrison (1871), 24 L. T. (N. S.), 570.
[322] (1824), 2 L. J. Ch., 90, at p. 102; and see Maclean v. Moody (1858), 20 D., 1154.
[323] (1859), 7 C. B. (N. S.), 268.
[324] 7 C. B. (N. S.), at p. 280.
[325] (1867), 16 L. T. (N. S.), 453.
[326] (1859), 7 C. B. (N. S.), 268.
[327] (1859) 7 C. B. (N. S.), 268. The decision in this case was no doubt right, but it should have been on the ground that the plaintiff was the employer or assignee of the defendant and not that he was the author.
[328] See Petty v. Taylor [1897], 1 Ch., 465; Kekewich, J., at p. 475.
[329] Shepherd v. Conquest (1856), 17 C. B., 427; Nottage v. Jackson (1883), 11 Q. B. D., 627.
[330] (1856), 17 C. B., 427.
[331] On the facts of this case the work of the servant ought to have become vested in the employer.
[332] (1871), L. R., 6 C. P., 523; and see Tree v. Bowkett (1896), 74 L. T. (N. S.), 77.
[333] (1874), L. R., 9 Ch., 518; and see Bowen, L. J., in Nottage v. Jackson (1883), 11 Q. B. D., 627.
[334] Powell v. Head (1879), 12 Ch. D., 686; Lauri v. Renad (1892), 3 Ch., 402.
[335] Ibid.
[336] [1900], A. C., 539.
[337] Ibid.
[338] 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, sec. 18.
[339] Chitty, J., in Trade Auxiliary v. Middlesborough (1889), 40 Ch. D., at p. 430.
[340] And in one case it was even doubted whether it applied to newspapers, Platt v. Walter (1867), 17 L. T. (N. S.), 157.
[341] Lamb v. Evans [1893], 1 Ch., 218; Trade Auxiliary v. Middlesborough (1889), 40 Ch. D., 425.
[342] (1856), 17 C. B., 427
[343] Brown v. Cooke (1846), 16 L. J. Ch., 140.
[344] As to whether a written assignment of the copyright from the author would be necessary in such a case, see infra, at p. 74.
[345] (1895), 11 T. L. R., 507.
[346] Brown v. Cooke (1846), 16 L. J. Ch., 140.
[347] (1855), 16 C. B.,459.
[348] (1889), 40 Ch. D., 425; and see Trade Auxiliary v. Jackson (1887), 4 T. L. R., 130.
[349] [1893], 1 Ch., 218; and see Maple v. Junior Army and Navy Stores (1882), 21 Ch. D., 369.
[350] (1855), 16 C. B., at p. 484.