## Facts

- Mary Morris Hamilton Schuyler died in 1877; she left no children, and her closest immediate relatives were extended family members.
- A voluntary, unincorporated group in New York City formed to commission sculptures honoring “woman as the philanthropist” and “woman as the reformer” for exhibition at the 1893 Columbian Exposition.
- The association publicly selected Mrs. Schuyler as the “typical philanthropist,” solicited subscriptions using her name, and contracted with a sculptor to create a statue to be exhibited with a statue of Susan B. Anthony.
- Philip Schuyler, a nephew/stepson acting for the immediate family, objected that the association did not know Mrs. Schuyler, exaggerated her philanthropy, and subjected the family to unwanted attention; he also asserted she disliked publicity and would have opposed association with the “woman’s rights” movement.
- The association refused to stop, asserting that Mrs. Schuyler’s life and character belonged to the public.
- Plaintiff sought an injunction barring defendants from making or exhibiting any statue or bust of Mrs. Schuyler, soliciting funds for it, or using her name and descriptions in connection with the project, expressly on a claimed “right of privacy.”
- Trial court granted a perpetual injunction; an intermediate appellate court affirmed; defendants appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether equity may enforce a privacy-type right to allow a relative to enjoin the creation, fundraising for, and exhibition of a commemorative statue of a deceased person.
2. Whether asserted mental distress and “family privacy” concerns, without defamation or property invasion, constitute a legally cognizable injury warranting injunctive relief against an honorific public memorial.

## Decision

- The court reversed the lower courts and set aside the injunction.
- Assuming arguendo that equity may, in exceptional circumstances, restrain conduct that is unjustifiable and calculated to wound personal sensibilities, the facts did not justify relief.
- Any privacy-type right implicated was personal to Mrs. Schuyler and could not be invoked after her death by relatives to control non-defamatory, honorific commemoration.
- Plaintiff showed no property right in the deceased’s name or likeness and no legal wrong sufficient for equitable intervention.
- Defendants were free to proceed with the statue, associated fundraising, and publicity.

## Legal Principles

- A privacy-type interest, even if recognized by equity in limited circumstances, is fundamentally personal and generally does not survive the death of the person whose privacy is asserted.
- Injunctive relief for non-property, personality-based harms requires conduct that is legally wrongful and “wholly unjustifiable,” producing a clear and substantial mental injury a reasonable person could recognize.
- Absent defamation, recognized property rights, or other established legal injury, mere offense, embarrassment, or disagreement with public praise or characterization of a deceased relative is insufficient for equitable relief.
- Courts will not treat relatives as holders of an inheritable right to control public mention or memorialization of a deceased person’s name or likeness.

## Conclusion

The court dissolved an injunction sought to stop a commemorative statue and related fundraising, holding that relatives lacked an enforceable legal right to block an honorific, non-defamatory public memorial and that any privacy-type right was personal and not assertable after death.


Schuyler v. Curtis, 147 N.Y. 434, 42 N.E. 22 (N.Y. 1895)