Sir Charles Thompson and Others, Executors of Lord Chesterfield against Eugenia Stanhope, Widow, and John Dodsley
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 23 March 1774 |
| Date | 23 March 1774 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 27 E.R. 476
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
Case 360.-Sir charles thompson and Others, Executors of Lord chesterfield against eugenia stanhope, Widow, and john dodsley. 23d March 1774. Injunction to restrain the executor of the person to whom they were written from publishing private letters, without leave of the executors of the person who wrote them.-[No Entry.] The late Earl of Chesterfield had a natural son, Philip Stanhope, who went abroad, and was in a public character. Before he died, Lord Chesterfield corresponded with him for many years ; in some of his letters drew the characters of persons, and wrote upon the subject of politics; in others he wrote upon education, and instructions to his son for his conduct in life ; and it was said that those letters formed a complete system of education. On the death'of Philip, the defendant, his widow, and two sons, came over to England in 1769, and were affectionately received by Lord Chesterfield, who put the children to school, and by his will left each of them an annuity of 100, and also gave them 10,000. The widow delivered up to Lord Chesterfield the characters, having first taken copies of them, but did not deliver up the other letters ; and after his death, which happened in 1772, the widow agreed with the defendant Dodsley, who is a bookseller, for printing and publishing the letters on education and instructions to his son ; and public notice was given of it in the newspapers by several advertisements, the first of which was in November last. Bill by the plaintiffs, to retrain the defendants from printing and publishing the letters, and to have the original letters and copies delivered up to the plaintiffs. [738] The defendant, the widow, in her answer said, Being frequently in company with Lord Chesterfield, she one day mentioned to him, that she thought the letters he wrote to her late husband, would form a fine system of education if published, or to that effect; to which his Lordship answered, " Why, that is true, but there is too much Latin in them"; but did not express any disapprobation in publishing the same ; and that some little time after such conversation. Lord Chesterfield requested her to restore to him some characters, which he had given to her late husband, declaring at the same time, upon his word and honour, that he desired to have those characters...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Between His Royal Highness Prince Albert, Plaintiff; and William Strange, Jasper Tomsett Judge, Jasper A. F. Judge, and HM Attorney General, Defendants
...the etchings as would, in the case of an invention, invalidate a patent. The cases of Millar v. Taylor (4 Burr. 2303), Thompson v. Stanhope (Amb. 737), Southey v. Sherwood (2 Mer. 435), were also cited and commented on. [THE lord chancellor, in the course of the argument, remarked that the ......
-
Ann Paxton Gee, Plaintiff, and William Pritchard and William Anderson, Defendants
...an instance of an injunction issued against the person to whom the letters were addressed, granted on the authority of Thompson v. Stanhope (Amb. 737). " It was therefore prayed, that the Defendants may be respectively restrained, by the order or injunction of this Court, from printing or p......
-
Lord and Lady Perceval v Phipps
...had the sole Property in them: the Principle being the Invasion of literary Property. Pope v. Curl (2 Atk. 342), and Thompson v. Stanhope (Amb. 737. See also Earl of Granard v. Dunkin, 1 Ball & Beat. 207), are the only Cases in Print upon this Subject. The latter is no more than the Opinion......