en for the violation of a verbal contract. Rule of damages on a verbal contract-to wit, that the lessee would not plough more than a stipulated quantity of land. 2. CONSEQUA V. WILLING, ET AL. 1 Peters' C. C. U. S. Rep. 230; ibid. 172, 176. The suit was brought on breaches of parol agreements, to de a breach of liver cargoes of tea, of the best qualities, &c. a parol a greement for the deliv ery of arti cles. On a rescis sale of land, Per Cur. Washington, J. The measure of damages in this case, is the difference between the price of the the teas, of the quality stipulated, and of the quality delivered, and the price at the time of the contract, when they were to have been delivered. The rate of damages to be recovered for a breach of contract, is part of the right to which the injured party is entitled, and it is totally distinct from the remedy provided for enforcing it. In the former case the lex loci, where the contract was made, or broken, is to prevail; in the latter the ler loci of the forum, where the remedy is provided. 3. HYNE'S REPS. v. CAMPBELL, Dec. T. 6 Monroe's Ky. Rep. p. 286. S. P. YOUNG V. HOPKINS, ibid. 18. Held by the Court, Mills, J., that on a rescision of a contract sion of a con for the sale of land on defect of the vendor's title, where no fraud was intended, the consideration money with interest, the consider and not the value of the land, is the measure of damages-and ation money is the meas the consideration mentioned in the deed in conclusive. And to ure of dam enable a party to recover the consideration money paid for land purchased by parol contract, it must be shown the defendant is unwilling, or unable to convey; Lewis v. Witchell, 5 Monroe's Rep. 191. ages. In ascertain ing the a mount the situation of 4. ROWLAND V. DowE, July T. 1818, 2 Murphy's N. Ca. Rep. p. 317. Case for the non-performance of an agreement to sell lands. The court instructed the jury that in assessing damages, they ought to respect the situation of the parties, when mere loss of the parties bargain was the gist of the action. Verdict for plaintiff. Per Cur. Sewell, J. Upon full consideration of this case, I am well satisfied that I was mistaken in the direction I gave to the jury. cannot be taken into considera tion. 5. NELSON V. MATHEWS, March T..1808, 2 Hen. & Mum. Va. Rep. 164. in the sale ranty is to Compensa Nelson purchased of Mathews, a plantation and two surveys, tion for a with a general warranty as containing by estimation a specified deficiency quantity, more or less. A deficiency in all three of the tracts of land on being asserted by Nelson, he brought a bill in chancery to be re-general war lieved of a judgment on one of his bonds for the purchase mon- be made not ey. The chancellor pronounced a decree that Nelson was enti- at the time tled to a discount of 20 acres, being the difference between Ma- ered, but at thews deed, and the deed of Mathews to Nelson; but where the contract the deficiency was only eight acres, such deficiency was not more than a purchaser in gross might reasonably expect. Per Cur. Tucker, Roane and Fleming, Js. Where the vendor's title papers call for less than the specified quantity in his deed to the purchaser, and the conveyance is by general warranty, and containing by estimation more or less, he is bound to make good the difference to the purchaser, and the compensation for the value of such deficiency is not to be made at the time it is discovered, but at the time of the contract. And they also held that a deficiency of eight acres out of a tract of 552, is no more than a purchaser in gross, might reasonably expect. 6. DAVIS V. EXRS. OF RICHARDSON, Aug. T. 1790, 1 Bay's S. Ca. Rep. 105. it is discov the time of Per Cur. Wherever a contract is entered into, for the deliv- Where no time is men ery of a specific article, the value of that article, at the time tioned. fixed for the delivery, is the sum the plaintiff ought to recover. As no time is mentioned in this case, for the delivery or repayment, nor any demand proved, the commencement of the suit must be considered as the demand, and the value at the time of commencing the action, with interest, is the true and proper rule of estimation. -7. FARRAND V. BOUCHELL, Nov. T. 1823, 1 Harper's S. Ca. Rep. Where the contract fur Fer Cur. Nott, J. In no case where the action is for money had and received; goods sold and delivered, or for work and la-nishes the bour performed, which from the nature, of the contract itself, standard. Bill to en join the de fendant an print, which claimed to ed and de signed. evidence and the design nor furnishes the standerd of assessment, are the jury allowed to give more than the amount received, with interest, or the value of the articles delivered, or the services rendered. Vide Howard v. Person, 2 Hayw. 335, where the court say damages should be according to the value of the thing, at the time the act should have been performed. Copyright.* 1. BINNS V. WOODRUFF, April T. 1821, 4 Wash. U, S. Rep. 48. Washington, J. This is a bill filed on the equity side of the Court, praying an injunction to restrain the defendant from printfrom printing, engraving, etching, copying, publishing, or selling a certain ing and en historical print of the declaration of independence, which the historical plaintiff claims to have invented and designed. The act of the the plaintiff 31st of May, 1790, ch. 15, secures to the authors of maps, have invent charts, and books, an exclusive right to the same, for a certain number of years. The suplementary act of the 29th of April, From the 1802, ch. 36, sec. 2, grants a similar right in respect to historical prints, engraved, etched, or worked. The bill in this case plaintiff's states, that the plaintiff, in the month of March, 1816, invented bill, it ap peared that and designed, or caused to be begun, to be designed, engraved, neither the and worked, an historical print, and splended edition of the decgeneral ar laration of independence, and in the same year publicly anof the print nounced his intention of publishing the same, by advertisement was his in in six daily news-papers in Philadelphia, and in many other pathat he had pers throughout the United States, setting forth, "that the deemployed and paid sign, which is from the pencil of Mr. Bridport, will be executed the artists in imitation of bas relief, and will encircle the declaration as a composed cordon of honour, surmounted by the arms of the United States; and execut immediately under which will be a large medallion of General He'd not en Washington, supported by cornucopia, and embellished with copyright. flags, spears, and other military trophies. On one side of this A person medallion, will be a similar portrait of John Hancock, President claim a cop of Congress, 4th of July, 1776; and on the other, a portrait of yright for a Thomas Jefferson, author of the declaration. The arms of the tion exist thirteen United States, in medallions, united by wreaths of olive form not vi; leaves, will form the remainder of the cordon, which will be furible to oth ther enriched by some of the characteristic productions of the rangement vention; but who had ed the same. titled to a cannot mere inven ing in a * Copyright is that exclusive right of property which the author of any origina] werk or composition claims for himself, to all benefits to be derived from which, Lis entitled by law, and for the infringement of which, he can maintain an action. must not on he must United States, such as the tobacco and indigo plants, the cotton ers. He shrub, rice, &c. The fac similes will be engraved by Mr. Va-ly have in lance, who, by permission of the secretary of state, will have the vented, but original signatures constantly before him. The portraits will be have design engraved from original paintings, and the most esteemed like-sented the nesses. The arms of the United States and of the several states, sut ject in will be faithfully executed from official descriptions,and in the man- ble form. ner directed by the most approved authors in the science of herald ry," The bill further states, that the outline of the design was done by Mr. Bird in 1816, when the plate and design were put into the hands of Mr. Murray the engraver. The documents containing the official copies and descriptions of the arms of the several states were obtained from the respective governors, and were then placed in the hands of Mr. Sully to be painted, That the sums paid to the several artists so employed, and for other expenses attending the execution of the work amounted to about $4,000. The bill, after alleging that the plaintiff has deposited a printed copy of the said print in the clerk's office of the district court of the eastern district of Pennsylvania, and published the requisite legal notice thereof in newspapers, and that as soon as the work is published, he will cause to be impressed on the face of the said print, the words which by law are directed to be impressed, so as to complete the plaintiff's legal title therein, then proceeds to charge the defendant with having ergraved, published, and exposed for sale, an historical print of the declaration of independence, of a plan, design and engraving, exactly similar to, and copied from, that of the plaintiff, by varying from, adding to, and diminishing the main design. The answer denies that the plaintiff invented, designed, engraved, &c., or that from his own works and inventions, he caused to be designed, &c. the historical print mentioned in the bill. That on the contrary, the said print was invented and designed, engraved &c. by other persons, and not by the plaintiff. It further denies that the plate which the defendant has prepared for publication, is of the plan, design, or engraving similar to that of the plaintiff, except so far forth as that the defendant has engraved the declaration of independence with an oval composed of the arms of the different States, but surmounted with the heads of the first three presidents of the United States, and not that of Mr. Hancock. That the defendant has not procured fac similes of the several signatures to that instrument, nor has he connected the arms of the states by wreaths of olive leaves, or followed, used, or imitated, in any manner, the devices, engravings, or etching of the print mentioned in the bill. The deposition of Murray states, that early in the year 1816, the VOL. III. 54 ed repre some visi plaintiff applied to him to engrave the state arms, and other ornamental parts, of a plate which he intended to publish of the declaration of independence, which the witness undertook to do. Soon after, the plaintiff handed to him a design by Mr. Bridport, which embraced the general arrangement of his intended publication. The drawings of the state arms were also delivered to him at different times, executed by Mr. Sully, and so reduced as to suit the spaces allotted to them in Mr. Bridport's design. The witness supposes that the drawing of General Washington's head was taken from Stuart's painting. The arins were engraved from drawings by Sully. Bridport designed the drawings for the ornaments connecting the arms, as well as the cotton, rice and tobacco plants at the bottom, and the devices at the top. The witness expresses his opinion that the whole arrangement, and not the particular parts of the print, constitutes the design, and that in this respect the defendant's print is a copy of the plaintiff's. That the particular parts of the defendant's print are not correctly copied from the other. The plaintiff paid the artists, who were not concerned with him in interest, and he consulted them about the arrangement, previous to its being done. The first question which arises upon the facts in this cause is, whether the plaintiff is such an inventor of the print of which he claims to be the proprietor, as the act of congress intended and described? The act of the 29th of April 1802 enacts that after a certain day, any person being a citizen of the United States, or a resident within the same, who shall invent and design, engrave, etch or work, or from his own works and inventions shall cause to be designed and engraved, etched, or worked, any historical or other print, shall have the sole right and liberty of printing, and re-printing, publishing and vending such print, for the term of fourteen years from the recording of the title thereof in the clerk's office, as prescribed by the act of the 31st of May, 1790, in relation to maps, &c. provided he shall perform all the requisites in relation to such print, as are directed in relation to maps, in the third and fourth sections of the said act." The person then who is intended, and described as the proprietor of a copyright, is one who shall not only invent and design, but who shall also engrave, etch, or work the print to which the right is claimed; or who, from his own works and inventions, shall cause the print to be designed and engraved, etched, or worked. In the first case, the inventor and designor is identified with the engraver, &c.; or in other words, the entire work, or subject of the copyright is executed by the same person. In the latter, the invention is designed or embodied by the person in whom the |