| U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York | Nov 19, 1906
This is a demurrer to a complaint on the ground that this court has no jurisdiction of the person of the defendant. The action is brought to recover damages for the infringement of a copyright. The complaint contains an allegation that the defendant is a resident of the city of- Minneapolis, Minn. He has been found and served in this district. He demurs to the complaint on the ground that under the act of March 3, 1887, the suit cannot be brought except in the district in which the defendant is an inhabitant.
The eleventh section of the judiciary act of 1789 (Act Sept. 24, 1789, c. 20, 1 Stat. 78) provided that all civil suits should bq brought in the district in which the defendant either was an inhabitant or was found at the time of serving the writ. Under this provision suits arising under the copyright laws, like all other suits, could be brought in any district in which the defendant could be personally served. This rule of service remained unchanged until 1887. It was included in section
By the act of March 3, 1897, it was provided that, in suits brought for the infringement of letters patent, Circuit Courts should have jurisdiction “in the district of which the defendant is an inhabitant, or in any district in which the defendant, whether a person, partnership or corporation, shall have committed acts of infringement and have a regular and established place of business.” This act now prescribes the rule of jurisdiction in patent cases, but there has never been any act changing the rule in copyright -cases. The act of January 6, 1897, amending section 4966 of the Revised Statutes (Act Jan. 6, 1897, c. 4, 29 Stat. 481 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3415]), relating to the liability of persons publicly performing dramatic compositions for which a copyright has been obtained, provides that any injunction obtained in such an action may be served anywhere in the United States and that any motion inay be made in any Circuit Court to dissolve such an injunction, upon notice to the plaintiff. But it does not make any provision for the manner in which jurisdiction shall be originally obtained. I think, therefore, that, in suits arising under the copyright law, the method of service provided by the judiciary act is still in force, and in m.y opinion such a suit may be brought in any district in which the defendant can be found and served with process. In the case of Fraser v. Barrie (C. C.) 105 F. 787" court="7th Cir." date_filed="1901-01-02" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/clark-v-national-linseed-oil-co-8742782?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="8742782">105 Fed. 787, Judge Kohlsaat dismissed a bill in a copyright case for want of jurisdiction, on the ground that the defendants did not reside in the district. The only question discussed in the opinion was whether the act of 1897 authorized a suit to be brought in any
But it seems to have been assumed by the counsel and by the court that, unless the act of 1897 authorized a suit arising under the copyright act to be brought in any district where the defendant could be found, the act of 1887, requiring actions generally to be brought in a district whereof the defendant is an inhabitant, applied. As already stated, in my opinion, it never did apply, and suits arising under the copyright acts may still be brought in any district in which the defendant can be found.
The demurrer is overruled, with costs, with leave to the defendant to answer upon payment of costs.