You are on page 1of 12
om ‘Thin menage wan recved by defendant ‘company at 8:20 at" Mooresville, and re ceived at Charlotte at 10:55, and’ at Salis- fat. T1:15._ ‘The evidence tended to show that the agent at Mooresslle endeay fred to sind the mestage to. Charlotte a ‘once, but, the agent at Charlotte. did. not fier hia calla! could ot dos Sovner than he" ald) Upon the’ menage {eaghing Salibiry, it wan atone delivered to Leroy Shuping, a mesenger boy wixtoen| 9 old, and who hed lived at Seltsbury all, a if He did not know Price Lefer, nor Ine icnowe where he lived, nor whether in Selisbury or nots and it would em, from the evidence, that he made extonsive search ‘and inguiry for Lefer, the sendee, but wea ‘unable to Hind him, And this being 20, a¢| U1s16 o'clode: he delivered the to Johnson, the ticket agent of the Southern Nonvu Canouiea Wailway’ at. Selisbury. ‘This delivery to| bi Jonmann was in time for the plaints to ave gone to Mrs. Howards before her fa. feraly ifthe delivery had. been made to ‘rice’ Lefer in person. "Te dincuason of thie case has a "wide range, aa, the. dinasalon fasts usually 'doen. "Bat not to sooner Wwhat is not hecomary for a decision of the ‘ase, the discussion Ta very much Tiited, ‘The’ message was delivered to Johnson. in Proper time, and’ climinates the discwasfon Sirkey gene thre may ave Wen in ending the tressage, a9 mo negligence ean ‘it the plaints thet did not cause the fnjary, “1 also eliminates a discussion na fein dhe mesenger oy, Shaping, vad due diligence in trying to And Price Lefer gern Ts own a ht ie court properly instructed the jary ‘ohn wis # proper agent of th Southern Rasiway Company, towhom a dlivery of th menage mh be mae ahd 6 livery {a him wee a delivery to the Southern Kail tray Company, and, a» the mesmage was di rected to brie Lefer in eare of the Southern | I ‘eleg. Co, ¥. Houghton, 82 Tex. 661, 15 LRA. (30 17 SW. 840; Western U. Teleg. Co. ¥. Young, 77 Tex, 248, 188, W: {ii These eases wore cited bythe pla {Mls for the purpose of showing that, al hough the telegram was aent in care of the Southern Railway Company, it was still the noe a rye day of det lg, oo a, a a Seaton bem see iE Se sito Oa Someta mice ee Eraemr eee ear, me ei ee Sire et Sere el eae Sore aes is ieareh ais are Sie lade ae > ie Seine ric ie rete spin tae Ooms livery to it was ‘Plaintifs. Houghton fex. 661, 18 L. R.A. 120,17 3. W- ‘And we cannot” see, outside of the Me. stalute, how the defendant incurred any lia an tar ey a iabtity’ “Bue it some that a delivery to the wile ‘ruelent delivery. Te would not ave been 4 Niel emolgne wid de ntact: at tnd quedion. for the jury nade ess Some reason was shown why it wad. pot or ‘houtd ‘not be, it"would be held’ euficest- Gray, Communication ty Teograph 4 23 While the onire charged thet fury cor rectly that delivery to Oe Souter Rail Company ask compliance withthe contract, and a delivery 10 dobnson waa 8 vary’ foil “ompany, 1 erroncunl ‘charged the jury tat if they found from # Sree feats prodent meh would hare excepted to, and St the defendants du fin or ther ngent 1 the telegram con lofted, and it hed no right to inform say one ele "Por this error there must be a new trial. Doaglas, J., concurs in the result, NEW YORK COURT OF APPEATS, Abigall ML. ROBERSON, by Margaret B. ‘Bell, Guardian ad Litem, Resp, ROCHESTER FOLDING BOX COMPANY ft al, Appts am Ny. 538) A. The _waamthorized publication extontiary te aly toe Fe 1 Atkenees by another person for a4 ‘ertning porpowoe will bot rapport an acti {or tnjunction or for damages on the theory {int i isan toydton of a Srght of privacy ed that Te Gt ‘depend almost entirely ao te quetion of 1908. paint ettng forth auch publication as a tt oa (Grog, Bortett, and. Haight, JJ, davent.) (une 27, 1902) PPE det om nn a, ent fret, ark wg iw ae re SiR SRS hte ae 1st le el i Se eran ase aime Yo have’ been caused ‘The facte are stated in the opinion Mr. Elbetdige Ta Adamas, for appellonte: ‘The complaint doce not state x cause of sadion for fibel. Waite. Nicholl, 3 How. 200, 1 Lo oa intent tae. "Townshend, Slander & Lite, pp. 2, 3, 18; ty Tiel p24 lar rich 1,413; White v. Nicholl 8 How. 366, Led 591; Root v. King, f Cow. 6133 Peo- ‘lev. Gromell, 8 Johnw Cas. 368, “The complaint states 0 cate of action pore tthe cme liter at iw or| SS1ie% sabte tak, tite, Rowity; Pom 1 Jur 48 43, 87, 2h; yun 16 18, 30} Eaton, 5, Jur. # 133 hep BW unig ion ing 1 John. Ch 690; Bees v. Watertown, al, LOT, 22 Taved. Ty Bi. Com. 443} Dey’. Brownrags, La 10 Ch, Div. 204; dja Wortey (1808), 1'Ch. 214, Dono ‘ann Finn, Hop Ch. 86, 14 Am. Dee 6315 Treona'v" eons, 14 Re 388,61 Asm: ep. ‘00: Sit, Bg 177 Johnaon v. Grok, iasen Die Bi wn TRAG OF Pragya nt pl 2 TNorthwesiera Law Review, p. 1; Dosk- ral ¥Dougnth 18 te. NB. 640; Attia. ty dohn Bi: Doheriy d Co. 21 Mich. 373, SGU ROA Bio, 80-8! W, 285, Corie vB W. Water Go, 91 Le. 289,04 Ped. 28 Murray v. Gast Lithographic & Buran Seg Mle St $08 Bene ty al Kovakis Roman’ Law, Tn tajenction ealeet te granted to i ot privacy tctory if the cane bad born wo presente | to'giee tall consideration to the ‘of perwon to be protected eentony ge fino ‘actor dacredit, and the question of the prop ‘ry viet of a. pervn In the tae‘ lao Der ‘ten parteat, which will be protected agalest ‘Roneasox ¥. Rocivsren Fouoixe Box Co, ” case, for equity deals only with matters of feontract or property, aril docs not exercive [jurisdiction In matters of morals or conduct ‘Kerr, Inf p. 1; High, Inj. § 1012; Bes She, Woolsey v. Juda, 11 How gR ‘Bgl win oot enjoin the pation o Tireideth v. Lance, & Pain, 24, 96 Am Deer B68; Se, York Jurente Guat Ro foot’ Duly 106 auger ® Dik Bs How, b'1b00 Meson Bitte o,v. Plor fee Min. Go. 116 Ma. 610 hm. Dee S10; racine. Pliny 80. 838530 ds 165, 6 Sup: Ce Rep. 1148) Raymond Risscll 143 Masa. 208, 58 -Am. Hep. 13% SN Rsdd, Whitehead. Riteon 118 Mare eh; a Mow Se Te. 108s Perea!» Pip aie 8.1 xnnot have damage, forthe ar or taken no cognaanes of mare olery te (el obbs v. London & 8, W. R. Co, be R. 10 QB IM Mitehcls.Rackester B. Gon 181 NY. tor, 341 RA, Tol, 45 NB. 354. 4 Mine. 616, 26'N. ¥. Bupp. 744; Chapmew {Western U. Taig Go. 86 Ga. 703, 17 1. 1 A450, 16 & ‘fy, Milton E. Gibbs, for respondent Deiendant' uso of paintits porta. for savertising purposes, without, Ber consent ter an Tanwarrantable invasion of for which an action ‘Behuyler v. Curtin, 7 Abb. N. ©. 387, 16 i, ta, got ae. eS) ABE, N.C. 376, 24 X.Y. Supp. Soria N.Y. 0 91 Le RA, Se 2S ‘22 Marka v. Jaa, 6 Misc. 200,20 N.Y. 5 | Supp. 908; ‘Manola v. Stevens (N.Y) 4 Harvard Law Rev. 193, Pallord ¥. Photo: grape Co He 40 Ch, Dive 38; Gor WW. Walker Go. 31 Ke RA. 285, 52 Fol. 421, 64 Fel 250) Pie v Scan Point Comet 0 Re. 28 1a am ep tis tot necessary that a property ight should exis in onde to alin action court of eauity. Pier eT aidan Point Cometery, 10 R, aah, Ie Ain Rep. 607; Suyder Snyder, i tow. Pr; 3087 Wolney 8 Sud, & Boer, "Polord w. Photographic Co, La R- 40 ‘Div, S16;"i Story, By. Jur. 430, 30: Prince iter, Strona, | Maen G35. ‘Bveryperson haa a property right in his Jown photograph, and unt that right in str- fondered he i fn exclusive owner, and aleo St the additional right to make and circu Ha i copie of Eat poteeraph liad t botagraphie Gi. 4 Ch. Divs 348; Tuck Ws Prester,be R10. QB ‘quetions wae aot considered. tecnume of the Iiek'ot en alleration ne tothe defamatory tend cy of he. prdileation, ‘The later le bot at si acunaea in the majority opin, ‘on the question of the PME of prleacy en rally. ees In thle rien, sCorieg Wen. Ws: eGo (C.€.D, Stage} 81 ERA 283, and ‘curtis 8 Le ‘i uttatborized use of te by other persona for Mivetnng. puspeees. The” former of these airs. vy Jobe Doherty & Ga. (iii) a be Bea. 3 ‘orliea ¥. E. W. Walker $e 3h Le A283, Ted 404 04 Fd 280; Wynchamer ¥. People, 13 N.¥. 438. "The fac ‘that this case’ may be ‘new in instance is not a suficient reason for turn: ing, the plaintiff out of court ‘riper v. Hoard, 107 N.Y. 13, 18 N. E- 620: Tujek-v. Goldman, ig0 N.Y. 176, 3 LR. A. 150, 44.N. Bi 173; Sorenten Balaban, 11" App. Div. 106, 42 N.Y. Supp. G54; Hoefer 8 ocfler, 12 App. Div. 64, 62 rograpbic portraits of plaintiff wete her property. and she has a Fight to Gn accounting. of sales and_‘usee of the sai. by the defendants Tam. & ng. Ene. Law, 24 ef. pp. 584 ‘88: Hier v. brohams, 82 NY. 810, 37 ‘Am: Rep. 660; Piper’ w’ Hoard, 107 N. Y. 13) 19 WE 8867 Jewelers” Mercantile Aserey v. Jewelers Weelly Pub. Co. 168 N. ViodL, 41h Re A. 846, 40 NE 872 ‘The ‘plain is entitied. to damages for her mental distress and sonoyanee, {he recovery othe prota made by the nae Meylr'v. dordon, 113 Tod. 282, 14 N. B. gtr Cam. Bag neta, pw, ot Gre ‘sedge, Dewawe Boral Bore Gardner, 83 la Aone @; Hiamilion ve Third Ieerca gS Ns: Prone Ridge 32 Asc. 660,66 N,N Supp Mover, 3: Blackt. 407; Newell v. Whitcher, 53° Ve" 699, 38. Am. Rep. 703; Leach v Teach, 11 Tex. Civ. App 600, 33 8. W703; Barbee v, Recor, 00 Atha. 000; Williams ¥. den 09 Ajp Dw. S38 XX Supp. 2011 Pretaer ve Wietandt, 48 App. Div. 500, G2. N0'F. Supp, 800 lioore Se Rugg, Minn. 28; 0 et. 38, 40 N. WoT asker, Ch J delivered the opinion of the court “The apgetlate division has certified that the following questions of law have arisen nis cree’ abd ought to be reviewed by {his courts" (1) Docs the complaint here ae oa cause of action at Taw aguinst the dctendaots, or ther of them? (2) Don the complaint herein state tease of action inequity nexinat the defendants, or ether ot Siem? ‘fhewe questions are presnted oy 2 domirrer to the complaint, which ts put ‘pon the ground thatthe ‘complaint. does not state ‘inte wfiont 0 onattate aise of action eae ayer admit wat nt, eae facta, which are expromiy: lloged inthe gmt bl evething when he i pet iy tae tnd renovate intend omy i alleations (Sarie No. Ts 25), wer are toh fhe complaint, regarded from ‘of Vie Paley can be aid to to elif either in law or in complaint alleges that the Pranklin Mills Company. one of the detent pa fore'the commencement of the action, sith UL RA Nw Yous Cover oF Arreaus, | fering, oth. in abd; Lewis | to at the sum of $15,000. ‘There Jom, cut the knowledge or consent of plaintif, defendants, Knowing that they had ‘no right for authority ‘so to do, had obtained, made, ited, sold, and circulated about’ 29,000 lithographic prints, photographs, and ike essen of plain, made fn = manner par {iclary at up i the cmp, that don paper up which the keen ere Drinled"snd above the portrait there wert Bunad Yn rge plan etter he words EMour of the Panty.” and Below the por trait, in lange ceptal letters, = Franklin rand in the lower right hand corner, in smaller capital letters, © Rocbew ter Folding Box. Go, Rochester, Ne ¥-7" that upon the anime abeet were other adver Lsemente of the flour of the Franklin Mille CConipany:. at thove. 25,000 Tikenenses of tie ali Chun ore have ben con spictously. posted. and. displayed in stores reiousy ago ana ‘ctl pubic {hat they have been recognized by friends of Ue plaintif and other people, with the re ste Unat plain’ has Seem grently bum ted by the acoffe and Jeers Of pertons who have recognized her face and picture on this tdvertisement, and her good hame han been Attacked, causing her great distros and oul iy'and mindy. that abe tras thade sick, and. mifered a severe ner ous shock, wae condned to her bed, and compelled to Physician, becase of heer facta; that defendants had continued print, make, use, sel, and circulate the said lithographs, and that by reason of the Feregoing facts paintif’ had wulfered dam. sages in the sum Of 815,000,. The complaint rave at aetondtnt be enjoined front mak ng, printing, publishing. ercitating. oF us fing’ in eny manner any Ukenessen of plain AU in any form whatever for further relict (whieh ie isnot necesanry to consider here) and for damages. i will be obwerved that. there in no com plaint made that plaintiff was Hbcled by tris Patieation of bet portrait ‘The tke ald to be a very good one, and one that her frlendn and acahaitancn were able toe oie hor grievance Yo that god portrait of he. and thereforo one easily re Seine, Ras been ised to attract attention {Gund the paper upon which defendant mil company’s ndertisementa. appear. Such Duley, which some find agente, ix to lain very distasteful and: thus, because Bt defendants inpertinenee. in using’ her ptr tout her consent, fr tel nisiness purposes, she has been ened to auifer mental distress where others would have appreciated the. compliment. to their Tenuty implied in the selecton of the picture for such purposes: but, as it in distatefal to her, ahe acks the Aid of the courts to fenjoin'a further cireulation of the litho. [zraphie prints containing her portrait made Ge alleged in the complaint, and, aa an i ident thereto, (0 reimburne her for the da {gen to her feelings which the complaint fixes ho prec lent for auch an action to be found ia the Alecisions of this court,” Indeed, the learned Sindge who wrote the very able and interes