Exhibitors Herald (1927)

46 BETTER THEATRES SECTION OF March 19, 1927 ATTRACT SUMMER PATRONS Keep Your Theatre Cool With a impremeBlower Considered from every angle — air volume, velocity, efficiency, quietness, construction, price — this blower is just what its name implies — SUPREME. The all-steel Supreme wheel, the heart of the blower, is absolutely quiet in operation. Its ten spoke spiders, extra heavy, scientifically shaped blades and perfectly balanced construction does away entirely with vibration and objectionable noise. You will look in vain for a wheel of this character in other blowers. 'X SUPREME 1\ POINTS OF SUPERIORITY «[ Cooling capacity, 30,000 to 40,000 cubic feet per minute when driven by 5 H. P. motor. Ample for the average theatre of 200 to 800 seats. Housing is uniform, kiln-dried stock with metal scroll. Neatly finished in black with wheel in contrasting red. Sturdiness and long life are inbuilt. Horton Variable Speed Pulley Drive can be furnished if desired.This allows any speed range from 100 to 350 R. P. M. and permits the year ’round use of the blower as a ventilator. Installation takes only a few hours, but the benefits last for years. Many exhibitors tell us that the Supreme Blower has paid for itself in the extra profits made possible in a single month. Price ^165 f.o.b. St. Louis. Standardization and volume production makes it possible for us to sell Supreme Blowers at this low price. Terms if desired. Install the Supreme Blower now before hot weather comes, and get the benefits while paying for it. Before You Decide COMPARE QUALITY-SIZE-PRICE Write for copy of Catalog E SUPKEME HEATER & VENTILATING CORE STLOUIS U-S-A SUPER-LITE LENSES Unparalleled for use with low intensity reflector arc lamps “They challenge comparison” See your dealer or write to Projection Optics Co., Inc. ROCHESTER, N. T. Half Size Tenses in Focal Lengths From V/2 Inch Up PRINTING Exclusively for Exhibitors circus"heralds PROGRAMS DATES POSTERS EXHIBITORS PRINTING SERVICE 711 S. Dearborn St. Chicago, 111. Court Decides Who Agreed to W as Restrained from in Competition with By LESLIE CHILDS AS a general proposition of law, where ^ * the owner of a going business sells it, and agrees not to compete thereafter with his buyer, such terms will be enforced by the courts if reasonable in their nature. And further, in such a situation, the seller will not, as a general rule, be permitted to evade his contract by secretly engaging in a competing business in the name of a third person. Of course, since each case of this kind must necessarily be decided in the light of its facts, the subject cannot be covered by any hard and fast rule. However, as an example of the application of the above rule of law to a contract involving the sale of a motion picture theatre, the recent Texas case of Clay vs. Richardson, 290 S. W. 235, is well worth a brief review. t * * In this case Clay and another owned and operated a motion picture theatre in the town of Olney, Tex. They sold the business to Richardson for the sum of $10,500, and the contract of sale contained the following agreement on the part of Clay and his associate : “We further agree, in consideration of the premises, that we, nor either of us, will again enter into or engage in the theatre or moving picture business in Olney, Tex.” Following this, Clay erected a theatre upon a lot he owned in Olney. This he equipped with moving picture machines, screens, chairs, etc., and delivered it to one Bray who proceeded to operate same as a moving picture theatre in competition with Richardson. Richardson thereupon brought the instant action against Clay and Bray for an injunction to restrain the operation of their theatre. In this action it was alleged that they had conspired together to avoid the force and effect of the agreement entered into by Clay, not to thereafter operate a theatre in competition with Richardson. In defense. Clay and Bray denied the conspiracy, and set up that Bray was operating the new theatre under a lease from Clay, and that the latter was not interested in the business. Upon the trial of the cause there was evidence to the effect that when Richardson bought out Clay, he thought the town woidd not support another picture theatre and for that reason insisted that Clay agree not to open another house. There was also evidence that tended to show that Bray was operating the new theatre under some sort of a commission arrangement with Clay. Further, it was shown that Clay was much in and about the theatre, and had contracted with certain film producers for films. On this state of evidence, the trial court reached the conclusion that Clay was in fact interested in the business, and was violating the terms of his contract with Richardson, by operating a competing house in the name of Bray. The court thereupon awarded an injunction against Clay and Bray, which forbid them from further operating the theatre. From this Clay and Bray appealed to the higher court, and here in reviewing it was, in part, said : “We have carefully examined the state