Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Christie v. Cohan

Christie v. Cohan, 154 F.2d 827 (2d Cir. 1946)

Type: Opinion
Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1946-04-18
Topic: general

PER CURIAM. A statement of the outlines of this cause appears in the opinion of Judge Conger in Christie v. Harris, D.C., 47 F. Supp. 39. We need not repeat what he there has said.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Christie v. Cohan. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status: pending
Cited by: 13 opinions

CHRISTIE v. COHAN,154 F.2d 827(2nd Cir. 1946)

CHRISTIE v. COHAN et al.

No. 256.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

April 18, 1946.

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.

Action by Madge Christie against George M. Cohan and others, executors of Sam H. Harris, and others, for alleged infringement of plaintiff's copyrighted play "Through the Looking Glass", by the play "Stage Door". From a judgment of the District Court,47 F. Supp. 39, dismissing her complaint, plaintiff appeals.

Judgment affirmed.

Frederick E. Weinberg, of New York City, for appellant.

Greenbaum, Wolff Ernst, of New York City (Morris L. Ernst, Alexander Lindey, and Harriet F. Pilpel, all of New York City, of counsel), for appellee Ferber.

Howard E. Reinheimer, of New York City (Howard E. Reinheimer and Lee Moselle, both of New York City, of counsel), for appellee Kaufman.

O'Brien, Driscoll Raftery, of New York City, for appellees Cohan et al., executors of Sam H. Harris.

Before L. HAND, SWAN, and CLARK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

A statement of the outlines of this cause appears in the opinion of Judge Conger in Christie v. Harris, D.C.,47 F. Supp. 39. We need not repeat what he there has said. The appeal comes to us upon a finding that the defendants, Ferber and Kaufman — the authors of the offending play — had not had access to the plaintiff's play, or knowledge of its existence, or of the plaintiff or her collaborator, or possession of a copy of the play, or acquaintance with any of its incidents or characters. Unless we say that that finding was "clearly erroneous," the appeal is at an end. Judge Conger saw both the authors, and they were examined at length before him; their testimony left him no escape but to accept it as he did, or to conclude that both deliberately perjured themselves; no lapse of memory will explain what they said. In such a setting nothing should move us to hold that the finding was plainly wrong except a parallelism between the plays which admits of no innocent explanation. We have read them both, and do not find the slightest basis in them for disbelieving the authors' disclaimers. Such similarities as exist: i.e., the general theme, the mise en scène, the suicide and the rest, are easily accounted for upon the assumption of independent composition. Indeed the only thing which even faintly demands an explanation, is that the lead in each play takes to the stage because of her mother's defeated histrionic ambitions. That might serve as corroboration, if there were really any tentative inference to corroborate; but there is none. In order to suppose that these two highly experienced and successful authors should have found in the plaintiff's play cues for the farfetched similarities which she discovers,Page 828one must be obsessed, as apparently unsuccessful playwrights are commonly obsessed, with the inalterable conviction that no situation, no character, no detail of construction in their own plays can find even a remote analogue except as the result of piracy. "Trifles light as air are to the jealous confirmations strong as proof of holy writ."

The attorneys for each of the defendants will be awarded $400 as allowance upon this appeal, and the judgment will be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.