Summary

Portrait of William R. Day William R. Day Hills Company v. Hoover — Opinion of the Court

The question whether more than one suit could be maintained under § 4965, or whether it was necessary to find the infringing sheets by means of some action or process before beginning an action for the penalty, was not before the court in that case, and was in no way decided. The expression of Mr. Justice Miller, that the word 'found' meant that there must be a time before the cause of action accrues at which the infringing matter is found in the possession of the defendant, has been differently interpreted in the courts of the United States.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of William R. Day William R. Day Hills Company v. Hoover — Opinion of the Court

The copyright statutes of the United States afford all the relief to which a party is entitled, and no action outside of those provided therein will lie. Globe Newspaper Co. v. Walker, 210 U.S. 356, 52 L. ed. 1096, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 726. It therefore follows that Hills & Company, having brought an action for the recovery of the infringing matter, and having conducted it so far as to have the goods seized and turned over to them, can have no other remedy under the statute which provides for all relief in a single action.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of William R. Day William R. Day Hills Company v. Hoover — Opinion of the Court

There is no difficulty in issuing a writ in the nature of a writ of replevin in an action such as is authorized by § 4965, requiring the marshal to seize the alleged forfeited plates and copies, and asking in the same suit to recover the penalty for those found in the defendant's possession. The alleged infringing matter will be brought into court to abide its order and judgment, and at the same time, in the same action, a recovery may be had for the penalty awarded.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature