Tuesday, February 21, 2006

Hardy v. Burroughs

Supreme Court of Michigan, 1930
232 N.W. 200
Property


Hardy built Burroughs a dwelling,
To whom they'd intended no selling.
They wanted to reap it
But court chose to keep it
At equity, payment compelling.

Isle Royale Mining Company v. Hertin

Supreme Court of Michigan, 1877
37 Mich. 332
Property

The 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, 1871
22 Mich. 311
Property

Defendant saw hoops in the makin',
But his right to the wood was mistaken.
But the law has approved him
Just '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
Property

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, 1900
34 S.E. 640
Property

A North Carolina defendant
Can be on jus tertii dependent.
The only good action
Will come from no faction
Besides the True Owner, resplendent.

Anderson v. Gouldberg

Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1892
53 N.W. 636
Property

The plaintiffs had stolen some wood,
And defendants took more than they should.
"The last wrongful getter
Has title no better,"
And the court for the plaintiffs so stood.

Monday, February 20, 2006

Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co.

Supreme Court of the United States, 1991
499 U.S. 340
Property

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
Property

Jordache'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.

Tuesday, February 14, 2006

Hanover Star Milling Company v. Metcalf

Supreme Court of the United States, 1916
240 U.S. 403
Property

The "Tea Rose" trademark (used for flour):
A more popular name by the hour.
I really can't state what
Made that name so great, but
They all wanted exclusive power.

Monday, February 13, 2006

Eldred v. Ashcroft

Supreme Court of the United States, 2003
123 S. Ct. 769
Property

The copyright term was expiring,
So Congress, the system rewiring,
Extended the period,
Preventing a myriad
Of authors' estates from perspiring.