TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Buck v. Heretis

BUCK Et Al. v. HERETIS

Buck v. Heretis, 24 F.2d 876 (E.D.S.C. 1928)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
District Court, E.D. South Carolina · Federal District Courts
Decided
March 7, 1928
Judges
Ernest F. Cochran
Citations
24 F.2d 8761928 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1035

Opinion — Cochran

ERNEST E. COCHRAN, District Judge!

This matter came up before me on hearing on infringement of copyright. The facts as admitted are as follows:

The plaintiff Leo Eeist, Inc., is the owner of the copyright, and the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers, represented by Gene Buck, its president, is the assignee of the' public performance rights in the musical composition “I’ve Grown so Lonesome Thinking of You.”

The defendant, M. J. Heretis, is the proprietor and operator of the Savoy Café in Columbia, S. C., a restaurant operated by him for profit.

On August 26, 1927, while patrons of the restaurant were dining therein, the musical composition “I’ve Grown so Lonesome Thinking of You” was played on a victrola for the enjoynient of the patrons. The defendant claimed that no notice of copyright appeared on the phonograph record which was being played, and that the defendant had no notice and did not know that the said piece was copyrighted.

I do not think this a sufficient defense under the Copyright Act (17 USCA).

It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed: That the defendant, his agents, servants and all other persons acting under the direction, control, permission or license of the defendant, be and they hereby are perpetually enjoined and restrained from publicly performing for profit, said musical composition entitled, “I’ve Grown so Lonesome Thinking of You,” and from causing or permitting the said composition to be publicly performed for profit in said restaurant or any other place owned, controlled, or conducted by the defendant, and from aiding or abetting the' public performance of said composition in any such place or otherwise; and it is further ordered, adjudged and decreed: That the plaintiffs recover of the defendant, the sum of two hundred and. fifty ($250.00) dollars as damages and the further sum of fifty ($50.00) dollars as an attorney’s fee and the costs as taxed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1929: 11958: 11965: 11966: 11986: 119292026peak 1929 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Harms, Inc. v. Sansom House Enterprises, Inc.162 F. Supp. 129 (E.D. Pa. 1958)
  2. United Artists Television, Inc. v. Fortnightly Corporation255 F. Supp. 177 (S.D.N.Y. 1966)
  3. Buck v. Duncan32 F.2d 366 (W.D. Mo. 1929)
  4. Jones v. Virgin Records, Ltd.643 F. Supp. 1153 (S.D.N.Y. 1986)
  5. Bourne v. Fouche238 F. Supp. 745 (E.D.S.C. 1965)

Most recent

  1. Jones v. Virgin Records, Ltd.643 F. Supp. 1153 (S.D.N.Y. 1986)
  2. United Artists Television, Inc. v. Fortnightly Corporation255 F. Supp. 177 (S.D.N.Y. 1966)
  3. Bourne v. Fouche238 F. Supp. 745 (E.D.S.C. 1965)
  4. Harms, Inc. v. Sansom House Enterprises, Inc.162 F. Supp. 129 (E.D. Pa. 1958)
  5. Buck v. Duncan32 F.2d 366 (W.D. Mo. 1929)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list