Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
WHIST CLUB v. FOSTER et al., 1929 — 42 F.2d 782 · caselaw · US
IP
WHIST CLUB v. FOSTER et al.
42 F.2d 782·United States District Court for the Southern District of New York·1929
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
WHIST CLUB v. FOSTER et al.
District Court, S. D. New York.
Oct. 21, 1929.
Fitzgerald, Stapleton & Mahon, of New York City (John J. Fitzgerald and Wm. M. K. Olcott, both of New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff.
Stern & Reubens, of New York City (Benjamin H. Stem and Raymond Reubens, both of New York City, of counsel), for defendants.
[MAJORITY — THACHER, District Judge.]
THACHER, District Judge.
In the conventional laws or rules of a game, as distinguished from the forms or modes of expression in which they may be stated, there can be no literary property susceptible of copyright. Defendant has not infringed, because he has not copied the literary composition of the plaintiff’s publication, but, in language quite distinctly his own, has restated the same set of conventional precepts. This under all the authorities he was entitled to do, and neither the general acceptance of the rules as official, nor, if it were true, their rejection as officious, could have any bearing on this controversy.
Bill dismissed, with costs.