The vaudeville theatre, building, operation, management (1918)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

the contract are, and is equally well posted as to just what the insurer has agreed to do. Do not assume that he will do thus and so; know it by clearly understanding just what he has agreed, in writing, to do. This subject is deemed of suf- ficient importance to justify repetition and the citing of a case or two. In a certain fire not only the property of the theatre was destroyed, but as well a grand piano and an expensive set of furniture which had been borrowed as "props" and for which the theatre was responsible. The insurance company was not liable, merely because the in- sured had not required that his policy should cover such losses. He was only protected against destruction of property of the theatre. An electrician, repairing a sign on the front of a theatre, dropped molten solder upon a lady passing below. Public liability insurance held by the theatre did not protect it in this case, because the policy provided that it cov- ered losses only in case of negligence on the part of employees of the theatre, whereas, the electrician in this instance was the employee of a sign company, who had the sign on lease to the theatre and was maintaining it in accord- ance with a contract. Yet the court held that the theatre was responsible for the actions of 287