SPERRY AND HUTCHINSON COMPANY
v.
RHODES

U.S. | 1911-05-01
No. 128
220 U.S. 502 Supreme Court of the United States (1911) Negative Treatment
Also reported at: 55 L. Ed. 561 · 31 S. Ct. 490 · 1911 U.S. LEXIS 1694 · SCDB 1910-121
Cited by 17 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

Sperry and Hutchinson Company used Rhodes's photographed portrait for advertising without her consent, and Rhodes sued under a 1903 New York statute prohibiting such use of a person's likeness. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment against the company, holding that the statute's application to photographs taken after its enactment did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause, as property rights created under a new law are necessarily subject to the limitations imposed by that law.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice Holmes

Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an action brought by the defendant in error for using her photographed portrait for advertising purposes without her written consent first obtained. The facts were found against the defendant (the plaintiff in. error), an injunction was issued and damages were awarded; 120 App. Div. 467; the judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, 193 N. Y. 223, and thereupon final judgment was entered in the Supreme Court. The suit was based upon Chapter 132 of the New York Statutes of 1903, which makes such use of the name, portrait or picture of any living person a misdemeanor and gives this action. The case comes here on the single question of the constitutionality of the act. It is argued that as before the statute a person could not prevent the use of her portrait by one who took and owned it, Roberson v. Rochester Folding Box Co., 171 N. Y. 538, to deny that use now is to deprive the owner of his property without due process of law.

The Court of Appeals held that the statute applied only to photographs taken after it went into effect, as was the photograph of the plaintiff that the defendant used. The property was brought into existence under a law that limited the uses to be made of it, and, if otherwise there could have been any question, in such a case there is none. Some comment was made in argument on the distinction between photographs taken before and after the date in 1903 as inconsistent with the Fourteenth Amendment. But the Fourteenth Amendment does not forbid statutes and statutory changes to have a beginning and thus to discriminate between the rights of an earlier and later time.

Judgment affirmed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Califano v. Webster, 430 U.S. 313 (U.S. 1977)
    …repeal any provision” of the Act, 42 U. S. C. § 1304, and the Fifth Amendment “does not forbid . . . statutory changes to have a beginning and thus to discriminate between the rights of an earlier and later time.” Sperry & Hutchinson Co. v. Rhodes, 220 U. S. 502, 505 (1911). It follows that Congress may replace one constitutional computation formula with another and make the new formula prospective only. Reversed. Under § 202 (a) of the Act, 42 U. S. C. § 402 (a) (1970 ed. and Supp. V), a fully insured in…
  • United States v. Md. Savings-Share Ins. Corp., 400 U.S. 4 (U.S. 1970)
    …eral income tax certain corporations organized prior to a specified date, does not of itself indicate that Congress has made an arbitrary classification. Cf. Stanley v. Public Utilities Comm’n, 295 U. S. 76 (1935); Sperry & Hutchinson Co. v. Rhodes; 220 U. S. 502 (1911); Watson v. Maryland, 218 U. S. 173 (1910); Sampere v. New Orleans, 166 La. 776, 117 So. 827 (1928), aff’d per curiam, 279 U. S. 812 (1929). Normally, a legislative classification will not be set aside if any state of facts rationally justifyi…
  • Louts K. Liggett Co. v. Baldridge, 278 U.S. 105 (U.S. 1928)
    …ct the drug stores that it now owns. The Fourteenth Amendment does not. forbid statutes and statutory changes to have a beginning and thus to discriminate between the rights of an earlier and those of a later time. Sperry & Hutchinson Co. v. Rhodes, 220 U. S. 502, 505. Mr. Justice Brandéis joins in this opinion.…

Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw