Hyperlawhypertext legal database Binns v. Vitagraph Co. of America 140 A.D. 925

← Cases

Binns v. Vitagraph Co. of America

140 A.D. 925 Court N.Y. App. Div. English

Decision Dissent — McLaughlin, J. (dissenting): · Dissent — Dowling,' J. (dissenting):

Contents
p. 925
John R. Binns, Respondent, v. Vitagraph Company of America, Appellant.

Headnote

Injunction — use of person’s name.
Appeal from an interlocutory judgment, entered upon the decision of the court, after a trial at Special Term.
Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present—:Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Miller and Dowling, JJ.; McLaughlin and Dowling, JJ., dissenting on grounds stated.

I think the judgment should be modified so that the defendant should be only enjoined from using the plaintiff’s name in connection with the circular and the production referred to.

I dissent upon the ground that the use of the plaintiff’s name upon the film itself is not a use, within the meaning of the statute,[1] for advertising purposes or for the purpose of trade; and that the unlawful use of the plaintiff’s name upon the circular advertising the films in question for lease to the trade is not within the scope of the complaint, nor relied upon as a foundation for the judgment.

* See Civil Rights Law (Consol. Laws, chap. 6; Laws of 1909, chap. 14), §§ 50, 51.— [Rep.