"will not," says Lord Eldon, "give an account of the unhallowed profits of libellous Publications” (s).

Where the right of printing and selling a Work is grounded on an Act of Parliament, it is not necessary to establish the right at Law previous to filing a Bill (t); but if the claim to the Copyright depends upon the effect of an Agreement, the Court will not grant an Injunction against an invasion of the Copyright, until a recovery in an Action (u).

The Principle on which the Court grants Injunctions to restrain the Sale of Books, is, that damages do not give adequate relief; and that the Sale of Copies by the Defendant is, in each instance, not only taking away the Profit upon the individual book, which the Plaintiff probably would have sold, but may injure him to an incalculable extent, which no Inquiry for the purpose of damages can ascertain (2). But wherever a fair doubt appears as to the Plaintiff's legal right, the Court always directs it to be tried, and only permits the Sale, on an undertaking to account according to the result of the Action (y). Indeed, it is frequently, if not constantly, prayed by the Bill in these cases, that the right, if disputed, and capable of Trial in a Court of common Law, may be there tried and determined under the direction of the Court of Equity; the final object of the Bill being a perpetual Injunction to restrain the infringement of the right claimed by the Plaintiff (≈).

(s) Wolcott v. Walker, 7 Ves. 1. In Southey v. Sherwood, 2 Meriv. 437. Lord Eldon confirmed that case.

(t) 1 Ves. 476.
(u) Wolcott v. Walker, 7

Ves. 1.

(x) Hogg v. Kirby, 8 Ves. 225; and see Wilkins v. Aikin, 17 Ves. 424.

(y) See Wilkins v. Aikin, 17 Vés. 422.

(z) Redesd. Tr. Pl. 112, 3rd

edit.

An Injunction until Answer, or further order has been granted, to restrain the publication of a Work as the Plaintiff's, upon Affidavit by the Plaintiff's agents (the Plaintiff himself being abroad) of circumstances making it highly probable that it was not the Plaintiff's Work; and the Defendant refusing to swear as to his belief that it was so (a).

Where a Person was exclusively appointed by the House of Lords to print a Trial before that House, and another printed and sold the Trial, an Injunction to restrain the Sale until Answer, was granted (b).

The Proprietor of a copyright must file separate Bills against each Bookseller taking copies of a spurious Edition for Sale. If a Defendant transfers his Books to another, that person, it seems, may be made a Party (c).

Most of the cases where an Injunction has been sought to restrain the Sale of Books, have been where, under colour of a new work, the old work has been republished, and copies multiplied; but an Injunction has, on the same principle, been applied to restrain the Sale of a Work, which, though not the same, has been represented as the same (d).

A Collection of Letters, as well as other Books, is within the intention of the 8th of Queen Anne, c. 19, the Act for the Encouragement of Learning (e); and an Injunction has been granted to restrain the Executor of the Person to whom private Letters were written, from publishing them without the leave

(a) Byron v. Johnston, 2 Meriv. 29.

(b) Gurney v. Longman, 13 Ves. 493. S. C. MS.

(c) Dilly v. Doig, 2 Ves. jun.

486.

(d) 8 Ves. 215.

(e) Pope v. Curl, 2 Atk. 341.

of the Executors of the Person who wrote them (ƒ); but every private Letter upon any subject to any person is not to be considered as a literary work to be protected upon the principle of Copyright. Letters in the prosecution of commercial or other business could not be considered as a literary work, in which the writers have a Copyright. Whether a correspondence between Friends and Relations in confidence, upon private concerns, falling into the hands of Executors, Assignees of Bankrupts, &c. could be restrained by an Injunction from being made public in a way that might be injurious to the feelings of Individuals, may be doubted, unless they were the subject of contract or property; but where the Plaintiff held out the Defendant to the Public as a person giving false intelligence, and never authorized by the Plaintiff to make such communications, and the Letters from the Plaintiff were denied, to the Defendant's belief, to be written in confidence, the Defendant was allowed, for the purpose of clearing himself, and showing that his intelligence was derived from the Plaintiff, to print her Letters (g).

Injunctions, also, have been granted, to restrain the publication of Law Precedents and Reports, and of other MS. Works (h) and of Translations(i) surreptitiously procured (k); and the publication of a Play taken in

435.

(f) Thompson v. Stanhope, Southey v. Sherwood, 2 Meriv. Ambl. 737. Earl of Granard v. Dunkin, 1 Ball & Beatty 207.

(g) Lord and Lady Percival v. Phipps, 2 Ves. & Bea. 27, 28.

(h) Duke of Queensbury v. Shebbeare, 2 Eden. 329.

(i) Wyatt v. Barnard, 3 Ves. & Bea. p. 77. Burnett v. Chetwood, Meriv. 441.

(k) See cases of Mr. Webb and Mr. Forrester, mentioned Ambl. 694.

shorthand from the mouth of the Performers, has been restrained (1). If a Person, by an extraordinary effort of Memory, could remember, so as to publish, a play, Lord Eldon intimated he might legally do so (m).

It is competent to any person to make a Map, a Road Book, a Selection from Authors, a Court Calendar, &c. such subjects being open to all the World; and in these cases different persons might publish their collections, though the articles might happen to be the same; but a person will not be permitted to copy the original Work of another (n). Nor is it allowable, under the pretence of Quotation, to publish either the whole or part of another's Work, though he may use, what it is in all cases very difficult to define, fair Quotation (o).

The invasion of another's Work is generally made evident to the Court by the similarity of the inaccuracies (p), which could only proceed from unguarded plagiarism.

An Abstract (q), or fair Abridgment of a Work, is allowable (r); but a colorable Abridgment is not(s). In regard to Engravings, it has been determined that, the Act (8 Geo. II. ch. 13,) is not merely confined to works of Invention, but means the designing

() Macklin against Richardson, Ambl. 694.

(m) Morris v. Harris, Dec. 12th 1814, MS.

(n) See Longman v. Winchester, 16 Ves. 269; and see Matthewson v. Stockdale, 12 Ves. 270, and Wilkins v. Aikin, 17 Ves. 425. Carnan v. Bowles, 1 Cox 283. S. C. 2 Bro. C. C. 80. (o). Wilkins v. Aikin, 17 Ves.

(p) Carnan against Bowles, 2 Bro. C. C. 84; but see Cary v. Faden, 5 Ves. 24.

(q) Dodsley against Kinnersley, Ambl. 403; and see Macklin against Richardson, Ambl. 696.

(r) Gyles v. Wilcox, 2 Atk. 143. S. C. Barn. 368. Bell against Walker, 1 Bro. C. C. 451.

(s) Butterworth v. Robinson,

or engraving any thing that is already in nature (†). It has been holden, also, that it is no answer to an application for an Injunction that the Prints are in any other work, unless they are represented in the same manner and form (u).

v. If Negotiable Securities, such as Notes, or Bills, are affected by Fraud, and are, before they are due, indorsed in a mercantile manner (x), the Indorsee, for the sake of commerce, will not be affected by the Fraud, and therefore the negotiation of them may be restrained by Injunction, immediately on the filing of the Bill, supported by an affidavit of the truth of the fraudulent circumstances stated in the Bill, lest the defendant should, upon intimation of the suit, by negotiating the Security, defeat its object (y). If Notes or Bills are assigned after they are due, the Assignee takes them subject to all the Equities to which they were liable, before they were so assigned. A Bond or Covenant fraudulently obtained, though assigned to a third person for a valuable consideration, without notice, remains, nevertheless, impeachable for fraud; for he has no remedy at Law, or right to sue in his own name, and has only an equitable remedy, which fails when the Bond is obtained by Fraud (≈) : so that an Injunction to restrain an Assignment in such cases, is, in general, unnecessary.

A Transfer of Stock will in many instances be restrained; as where there are opposite claims under different Wills (a), and in other cases where Bills