A cause set down before the Vice-Chancellor of England, was ordered to be transferred to another branch of the Court. Held, that the Vice-Chancellor of England had, nevertheless, jurisdiction to hear a petition in the cause, presented before the order of transfer was made.

THIS cause was set down to be heard before the Vice-Chancellor of England. After a petition had been presented in it, the cause was transferred to the Court of Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce. The question was whether the Vice-Chancellor of England had, nevertheless, jurisdiction to hear the petition.

Upon the point being mentioned, by Mr. Rasch, for the petitioners,

THE VICE-CHANCELLOR said that the order of transfer left untouched everything that had taken place in the cause previous to that order, and, therefore, he was of opinion that he ought to hear the petition.

By an agreement between an author and a bookseller, after reciting that the author had prepared a new edition of one of his works, and that the bookseller was desirous of purchasing it; it was agreed that Messrs. H. (printers) should print 2,500 copies of the work, in type and page corresponding with another of the author's works, at the sole cost of the bookseller, and that the latter should pay to the former, for the said edition, a certain sum by instalments, the first to be paid as soon as the edition was ready for publication, &c. : the work to be divided into three volumes, and to be sold to the public at 31.

Held, that the bookseller was not merely a purchaser of 2,500 copies of the work, but was, in equity, an assign of the copyright of it, to the extent that he was to be the sole publisher of it, until the whole edition, consisting of 2,500 copies, should be sold; and, consequently, that a bill by him to restrain a piracy of the work, was not demurrable:

Held also, that, notwithstanding some of the passages alleged to have been pirated, were contained in the prior editions as well as in the new edition of the work, the plaintiff was entitled to rely upon them, in aid of his title to the relief prayed.

The injunction having been granted on the plaintiff undertaking to try his right at law, and the author declining to allow the plaintiff to bring the action in his name, the defendant was ordered to admit at the trial, that the plaintiff was the legal proprietor of the pirated work.

THE bill stated that, for some years past, the plaintiff had carried on and still carried on the business of a law-bookseller and publisher in Chancery-lane; that, in 1805, the defendant, the Right Honorable Sir Edward Sugden, composed and caused to be printed and published a work called, "A Practical Treatise of the Law of Vendors and Purchasers of Estates;" that, at different times subsequent to that year, eight successive editions of the work were printed and published, and that Sir E. Sugden made various alterations in and additions to the work, in each of the successive editions; that, in 1839, Sir E. Sugden was the owner

of and legally entitled to the copyright of the work and [*573] of the several *editions thereof; that, in the beginning of that year, he prepared a 10th edition for publication, and, in that edition, he made very extensive alterations and additions to the work, and increased the same to nearly double the

1841. Sweet v. Cater.

size of the 9th edition; that in March, 1839, the plaintiff agreed with him for the purchase of the right of publishing the 10th edition, for the consideration and upon the terms and conditions after mentioned; that the agreement was reduced into writing, and, on the 28th of March, 1839, was signed by Sir E. Sugden and the plaintiff, and was as follows: "The Right Hon. Sir Edward Sugden having prepared a new edition (the 10th) of the Treatise of the Law of Vendors and Purchasers, and S. Sweet being desirous of purchasing the same, it is agreed that Messrs. Hansard shall print 2,500 copies of the work, in type and page corresponding with the 6th edition of the Treatise of Powers, at the sole cost of S. Sweet, and S. Sweet shall pay, to Sir. E. Sugden, for the said 10th edition, the sum of (The sum to be paid and the instalments by which it was to be paid were then mentioned. The first instalment was to be paid in cash, as soon as the edition was printed and ready for publication: the second instalment, by an approved bill payable four months after date; and the last instalment, by an approved bill payable eight months after date; and both bills were to be dated at the time the edition was ready for publication.) The work to be divided into three volumes, and to be sold, to the public, for 37. in boards; but, should it exceed 111 sheets or 1776 pages, a proportionate increase is to be made in the charge to the public, and a proportionate addition made to the consideration to be paid by S. Sweet to Sir E. Sugden. Fifteen copies in boards to be delivered to Sir Edward, free from all charge or expense." The bill further stated that, in pursuance of the agreement, the plaintiff *caused 2,500 copies of the 10th edition of the work, to [*574] be printed, by Messrs. Hansard, in three volumes, in the type and form specified in the agreement, and the said 10th edition of the work was published, by the plaintiff, on the 8th of December, 1839; that the plaintiff had paid, to Sir E. Sugden, the purchase-money agreed to be paid for the right of publishing the said 10th edition of the work, pursuant to the terms and provisions of the agreement; and had already sold a considerable number of the copies of the said 10th edition, but that a large number of the copies of such edition, still remained in his

1841.-Sweet v. Cater.

hands unsold: that, in November, 1840, the defendants Carter and Maddox, who were partners as booksellers and publishers at Launceston, in Cornwall, published a work intituled: "A Practical Treatise of the Law relative to the Sale and Conveyance of Real Property, with an Appendix of Precedents, comprising Contracts, Conditions of Sale, Purchase and Disentailing Deeds, &c., by William Hughes, Esq., of Gray's Inn, Barrister-at-Law;" that the plaintiff had lately discovered (as the fact was) that the greater part of the last-mentioned work had been copied, word for word or with some colorable alterations, from the 10th edi tion of Sir E. Sugden's work, and without Sir Edward's knowledge or consent; that, although some of the passages which had been so copied, were acknowledged to have been taken from Sir E. Sugden's work, yet, by far the greater portion of them were copied without any such acknowledgment; that the printing and publishing of the passages which had been so copied, was a piracy, on the part of the defendants Cater & Maddox, of the 10th edition of Sir E. Sugden's work published by the plaintiff; that the defendants, Saunders & Benning, who were partners as

law-booksellers and publishers in Fleet-street, were the [*575] *London agents of Cater & Maddox, and, as such agents, had published and sold Hughes's work, in London; that the legal interest in the copyright of Sir E. Sugden's work so as aforesaid purchased and published by the plaintiff, had never been duly assigned to the plaintiff, and the same was still vested in Sir E. Sugden as the author: and that Cater & Maddox and Saunders & Benning insisted, as the plaintiff was ad vised the fact was, that Sir E. Sugden was, therefore, a necessary party to the suit.

The bill prayed that an account might be taken of all the copies of Hughes's work, containing passages copied from the 10th edition of Sir E. Sugden's work, published by the plaintiff, which had been published and sold by Cater & Maddox, and Saunders & Benning respectively, and of the loss and injury which had been sustained by the plaintiff, by the publication and sale by them respectively of the said work; and that the four last-named defendants might be respectively decreed to

1841.-Sweet v. Cater.

make good and pay, to the plaintiff, such loss and injury, or, at any rate, that an account might be taken of the profits which had been made by them respectively by the publication and sale of Hughes's work; and that the same defendants might be respectively decreed to pay to the plaintiff the amount of such profits; and that they might be restrained from publishing, selling, or disposing of, or causing to be published, sold or disposed of, any copies or copy of Hughes's work, and that they might be decreed to deliver up to the plaintiff, to be cancelled, all such parts of the copies of the work so published by them which had been copied from the 10th edition of Sir E. Sugden's work, as were then in their possession or power.

*The defendants Cater & Maddox demurred to the [*576] bill, for want of equity.

Mr. Jacob and Mr. Willcock, in support of the demurrer: The bill states that the legal interest in the copyright of Sir E. Sugden's work, has never been assigned to the plaintiff, and that the same is still vested in the author: we, however, contend that the equitable, as well as the legal interest in the copyright, is still vested in Sir Edward; and that all that the plaintiff has acquired under his agreement, is a license to sell 2,500 copies of the work. The plaintiff has purchased not the copyright, but a mere license to publish and sell 2,500 copies for his own benefit; and there his right ends. He has no exclusive license for any definite time: there is nothing whatever to preclude Sir E. Sugden from licensing as many more persons as he pleases, to sell copies of his work. An author may give an exclusive license to sell his work for the whole duration of his copyright: which, in substance, would amount to an assignment, in equity, of the whole interest in the copyright. So an author may grant an exclusive license to sell his work for two years, or for any other number of years short of the whole term of his copyright: and that would give the licensee the interest in the copyright for the number of years specified. But that is not the case here: the plaintiff has no exclusive right for any particular term; but only a license to sell a certain number of copies. He might have had