Hardy v. Burroughs
Supreme Court of Michigan, 1930
232 N.W. 200
PropertyHardy built Burroughs a dwelling,To whom they'd intended no selling.They wanted to reap itBut court chose to keep it At equity, payment compelling.
Isle Royale Mining Company v. Hertin
Supreme Court of Michigan, 187737 Mich. 332PropertyThe plaintiffs mistakenly wandered,So rights by accession were pondered.And just like the last case,This chopped wood they did trace--But investments this small can be squandered.
Wetherbee v. Green
Supreme Court of Michigan, 187122 Mich. 311
Defendant saw hoops in the makin',But his right to the wood was mistaken.But the law has approved himJust 'cause he'd improved them;His labor he had too much stake in.
Tapscott v. Cobbs
Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia, 1854
52 Va. 172
The plaintiff's possession of land
Was challenged on Tapscott's demand.
But this court appelative
Said title is relative,
And Tapscott's defense was thus canned.
Russell v. Hill
Supreme Court of North Carolina, 190034 S.E. 640
A North Carolina defendantCan be on jus tertii dependent.The only good actionWill come from no factionBesides the True Owner, resplendent.
Anderson v. Gouldberg
Supreme Court of Minnesota, 189253 N.W. 636PropertyThe plaintiffs had stolen some wood,And defendants took more than they should."The last wrongful getterHas title no better," And the court for the plaintiffs so stood.
Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co.
Supreme Court of the United States, 1991499 U.S. 340
A phone book had left plaintiffs crying;
It ripped off their listings through spying.
But Rural's collection
Does not get protection;
One cannot own facts underlying.
Jordache Enterprises, Inc. v. Hogg Wyld Ltd.
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, 1987
828 F.2d 1482
PropertyJordache's trademark was prone,And "Lardashe" they could not condone.The court said, with clarity,That this was a parody!The defendants could reap what they'd "sow"n.
Hanover Star Milling Company v. Metcalf
Supreme Court of the United States, 1916
240 U.S. 403
The "Tea Rose" trademark (used for flour):A more popular name by the hour.I really can't state whatMade that name so great, butThey all wanted exclusive power.
Eldred v. Ashcroft
Supreme Court of the United States, 2003
123 S. Ct. 769
The copyright term was expiring,
So Congress, the system rewiring,
Extended the period,
Preventing a myriad
Of authors' estates from perspiring.