Cоmplainants file their hill of complaint and ask for an injunction to restrain the dеfendants from publishing and exposing for sale and selling two hooks, the one entitled “General Statutes of the State of Minnesota, prepared by the Commissioners appointed to revise the Statutes of the State by Act of the Legislature passed February 17, 1863,” and the other entitled “Appendix to Report of the Commissioners of Revision, embracing the Amendments to the same adopted by the Legislature.” The arguments urged by counsel for an injunction embrace no facts not fully set forth in the bill of complaint, and the truth of the matters contained in the affidavit read by counsel for the defendants in opposition to the motion soein to he admitted. The whole question depends upon the construction tо be given to the acts of the legislature of the state of Minnesota aрproved March 1, 1866, providing for the printing, binding, editing, and publishing the General Statutes of sаid state. ^ One of these acts provides for the letting to the lowest bidder of the contract to print and hind the statutes, specifying the kind of type and paper to he used, and embracing all the details necessary to secure a faithful performance on the part of the contractor; and, as an inducement for securing a low rate per copy
Thе complainants, it appears, were the successful bidders, and the cоpyright of the General Statutes was awarded them.
Now, what is the exclusive right which the complainants are entitled to under the acts of the legislature of thе state of Minnesota above referred to? Clearly, to print, publish, and sell thе General Statutes of the state of Minnesota, as edited and prepared by the commissioner named by the legislature, containing his head and marginal notes, and his references. They obtained no exclusive right to print and publish and sell the laws of the state of Minnesota, or any number of legislative acts. The mаterials for such publication are open to the world. They are public records, subject to inspection by every one, under such rules and regulations as will secure their preservation.' They may be digested or compiled by any one, and it is true such compilation may be so original as to entitle the author to a copyright on account of the skill and judgment displayed in the combination and analysis; but such compiler could obtain no copyright for the рublication of the laws only; neither could the legislature confer any such exclusive privilege upon him.
An examination of the book and pamphlet рublished by the defendants shows that they neither contain, nor purport to, any of thе marginal notes or references contemplated by the acts of the legislature, and no materials which would be embraced in the book to be published by complainants under the supervision of the commissioner, with the exception of the laws of the state. In my opinion, therefore, upon the facts set forth in the bill, the complainants are not entitled to a provisional injunction.
Motion denied.