Chase v. Sanborn et al. ing to show any such prejudice, and the court was of the opinion that the report of the master was correct, and it was confirmed. Samuel C. Eastman and Asa Fowler, for the complainant. CLIFFORD, J. Authors of any book or books, map, chart, or musical composition, if citizens of the United States, shall have the sole right and liberty of printing, reprinting, publishing, and vending the same for the term of twenty-eight years from the time of recording the title thereof, as directed by law. 4 Stat. at L. 436. Besides that it was required at that date that a printed copy of the title of such book or books, &c., should be deposited in the clerk's office of the District Court of the district wherein the author or proprietor resided, and it was made the duty of such clerk to record the same in a book to be kept for that purpose, in the form prescribed in § 4 of that act. Such author or proprietor was also required, within three months from the publication of the book or books, &c., to deliver a copy of the same to the clerk of said district. He was also required to give information that copyright was secured of the book, by inserting in the several copies of each edition published the formula prescribed in § 5 of that act, and the provision was that no person not complying with such requirement should be entitled to the benefit of the act. Instead of delivering a copy of the book, &c., to the clerk of the district, the requirement now is that the author or proprietor shall transmit such copy free of postage within one month of the date of publication to the library of Congress for the use of said library. 16 Stat. at L. 540. [After a reference to the master's report the court proceeds to say:-] Viewed in the light of that report, it is clear that the complainant is not entitled to an account nor to an injunction. Nothing remains for consideration except the question whether the complainant is entitled to nominal damages, as it is very clear that substantial damages cannot be allowed in a case where it appears that the matters charged have not worked any prejudice to the complaining party. Nominal damages may perhaps be allowed, unless some one or more of the defences are sustained, which remains to be considered. Evidence to show that the vendor of the complainant ever had Chase v. Sanborn et al. a valid copy of the Digest which it is charged the respondents have infringed is entirely wanting, which is all that need be said upon the subject. Damages cannot be recovered of a party for having used the matters published in a book which was never copyrighted, nor can a suit be maintained against a party for infringement in a case where there is no evidence of copyright introduced by the complainant. Sufficient evidence was introduced by the complainant to show that a printed copy of the title-page was deposited in the clerk's office of the District Court of the district wherein the author or proprietor of the several volumes of reports mentioned in the bill of complaint resided; but there is no evidence in the case that such deposit was made before publication, as required by § 4 of the Copyright Act. 4 Stat. at L. 437. Proof was also introduced sufcient to show that the author or proprietor did deliver or cause to be delivered a copy of the said several volumes to the clerk of the said District Court; but there is no evidence that the same were, in any case, so delivered within three months from the publication of the book, nor are there any facts or circumstances from which the court can supply, by inference, the want of direct evidence upon the subject, as there is no evidence whatever when publication was made. Persons claiming that they own the copyright of a book, in a suit for infringement, must prove their ownership by competent evidence, else their suit cannot be maintained, as the burden is upon the complainant to prove his title to copyright, as well as to prove infringement. Power is vested in Congress to secure to authors and inventors, for limited times, the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries; and Congress having exercised that power, authors, as well as inventors, must comply with the conditions which Congress has seen fit to annex to the enjoyment of such exclusive right. Deposit of a printed copy of the title of the book must be made, before publication, in the clerk's office of the District Court of the district wherein the author or proprietor shall reside, and he, the author or proprietor, must deliver a copy of the book to the clerk of said District Court within three months from the publication of the same, else he is not entitled to the benefit of the act. Such are the abstract requirements of the act of Congress; nor is it competent for the Circuit Court to disregard the Chase v. Sanborn et al. requirement. Wheaton et al. v. Peters et al., 8 Pet. 653; Reade v. Conquest, 9 C. B. (N. s.) 755. 3. Suppose it were otherwise, still the court is of the opinion that the complainant is not entitled to recover even nominal damages, as, by the statute law of the State, the judges of the court respectively were the authors of their opinions. Reporters of the decisions of the Superior Court were appointed by the Governor with the advice of the council; but the second section of the same statute provides that each justice of said court shall prepare for the press, and furnish to the reporter, concise reports of the cases in which the judgment or opinion of the court, in matters of law pending at the law terms, was pronounced by him, within six months after the same is pronounced. Rev. Stats. 405. § 5 of the same statute enacts that said reporter shall edit said reports as early as practicable, provide for the sale thereof by disposing of the copyright, or otherwise, as he may deem expedient, and the direction is that he shall pay into the State treasury the net proceeds, after deducting the reasonable and necessary expenses of publishing and selling. Of course, the judges respectively prepare the opinions, and the proof is equally full and decisive that they also prepared the head-notes to each of the cases reported in the several volumes of reports in question. Even grant that the copyright is not defective, still it cannot secure to the complainant what he does not own, nor could their vendors convey to them what they never owned. Nemo dat quod non habet. Persons, therefore, who buy from one not the owner, acquire no property whatever in the thing purchased, as no one, in such a case, can convey any better title than he owns; unless the sale is made in market overt or under circumstances which show that the seller lawfully represented the owner. Foxley's Case, 5 Coke, 109 a, 2 Black. Com. 449; 2 Kent, Com. (11th ed.) 224; Marsh v. Keating, 2 Clark & F. 260; Benjamin on Sales, 4; 1 Pars. Com. (5th ed.) 520; Mitchell v. Hawley, 16 Wall. 550. None of the reporters were the authors of the opinions nor of the head-notes, and of course they had no copyright in the same, and it follows that, inasmuch as they had no such copyright in the opinions or head-notes, they could not convey any title to the grantor of the complainant, and that the latter acquired nothing in that regard by virtue of the several conveyances under which he McGlinchy v. United States. claims. Having come to this conclusion, it is not necessary to decide whether the proofs introduced by the complainant show an infringement or not, as it is quite plain that the bill of complaint must be dismissed. Bill of complaint dismissed, with costs. MAINE DISTRICT. SEPTEMBER TERM, 1875. JAMES MCGLINCHY, in Error, v. THE UNITED STATES. BEFORE CLIFFORD AND FOX, JJ. Where goods were withdrawn from a United States bonded warehouse, to avoid the payment of the internal revenue tax thereon, exported from a domestic port, carried beyond the jurisdiction of the United States, and then brought back into a domestic port, they are imported goods, although not actually landed in any foreign port or place. Applications for leave to amend are generally addressed to the discretion of the court, and the ruling thereon is not generally the subject of exception or a writ of error. Documents from the custom-house to prove the withdrawal of goods from a bonded warehouse, and their exportation in a certain vessel, are primâ facie sufficient to sustain an allegation in the declaration that such things were done with the goods. Some of the goods removed from the bonded warehouse, and then brought back, were seized by the United States as goods unlawfully imported in a certain ship or vessel without having a manifest on board. Held, the record of that proceeding, when offered in evidence, was not an estoppel to the right of the plaintiffs to recover in this case. A State statute of limitations cannot have the effect to bar a right of action on the part of the United States secured to it by act of Congress. After suit brought, the time fixed by the Statute of Limitations for an action to be brought in, expired, and certain amendments were made to the writ after the time limited in the statute. Held, that this did not bar the right of action by the plaintiffs, where no new cause of action was introduced by the amendments. THIS was an action of debt by the United States, to recover penalties and duties for certain goods unlawfully imported into the United States, and bought by the defendant, knowing that the same were so imported. The case was tried in the District Court, and a verdict rendered for the plaintiffs. Exceptions were taken, and a McGlinchy v. United States. writ of error was sued out, and the cause removed to this court. The court has stated all other necessary facts in the opinion. Nathan Webb, United States District Attorney, for the United States. W. L. Putnam, for the defendant. CLIFFORD, J. Persons who receive, conceal, or buy goods, wares, or merchandise, knowing the same to have been illegally imported, if the goods are liable to seizure by virtue of any act in relation to the revenue, shall, on conviction thereof, forfeit and pay a sum double the amount or value of the goods so received, concealed, or purchased. 3 Stat. at L. 781. Distilled spirits were, by § 14 of the act March 2, 1867, made subject to a tax of $2 upon every proof gallon, to be paid by the distiller, owner, or any person having possession thereof, and the same section makes the tax a lien upon the spirits distilled, and upon the stills, &c., and on the lot or tract of land whereon the distillery is situated. 14 Id. 480. Goods once exported, of the growth, product, or manufacture of the United States, upon which no internal revenue tax has been assessed or paid, are made subject to a duty equal to the tax imposed by the internal revenue laws upon such articles, whenever the same are reimported into the United States. 14 Id. 330, § 12. Warehouses are provided by law for the safe-keeping of distilled spirits, and the provision is that such distilled spirits may be stored in such warehouses, without the payment of the internal revenue tax, upon the terms and conditions specified in the act of Congress. 14 Id. 155. Provision is also made that such goods so stored may, in certain cases, be withdrawn for exportation without the payment of any such internal revenue tax; but it is expressly enacted that if the goods are subsequently reimported, they shall pay a duty equal to the tax imposed by the internal revenue laws. 14 Id. 330. Pursuant to the provision authorizing distilled liquors to be warehoused, ninety-eight barrels of such spirits, of the product and manufacture of the United States, and subject to the said internal revenue tax, were deposited in a bonded warehouse without having paid the internal revenue tax; and the charge is, that the spirits so deposited were subsequently withdrawn for exportation without the payment of the internal revenue tax, and that the barrels containing the spirits were laden on board the schooner Adele, at Boston, in the district of Massachusetts, and that the same were duly exported |