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.
5
and delivered to it. These allegations are denied in the answer, except that it is admitted that the Patents Company has sent out notifications to its licensed exchanges giving a list of its licensed manufacturers and that the name of the Melies Company is not on said list, and except that it admits that said licensed exchanges have agreed with the Patents Company not to purchase or lease motion pictures except from the licensed manufacturers.
The answer sets up two defenses. First, that the transfer of the two license agreements from the Edison Company to the complainant was obtained by the fraud of the complainant, its officers and agents; second, that the two license agreements so transferred to the complainant on September 18th, 190^, have terminated by reason of the breach by the complainant of certain conditions subsequent contained in the collateral and concurrent agreement dated September 18, 1908, executed and delivered on the same day and at the same time as the transfer agreement (pp. 34-47),
George and Gaston Melies have with leave of the Court filed an intervening petition, in which petition it is alleged, among other things, that they have rescinded the contracts transferring the two license agreements (Schedules " A " and " B ") to the Melies Company for the reasons therein more particularly alleged; that they claim to be re-invested with the title to the said license agree ments and the relief prayed for in the petition, among other things, is for a decree re-instating them in their rights as licensees, under Schedules " A " and " B ''; that the Melies Company be decreed to execute a reconveyance to them of these license agreements; that the Melies Company be restrained from asserting any rights in or to said license agreements or interfering with them as licensees and that the Patents Company be compelled to issue to them a new license in the form heretofore issued to the other licensees (pp. 49-84). The intervenors a{)pear here as appellees having obtained from the Patents Company pending the suit a license terminable in the event of a decree in favor of the complainant.
The Court below dismissed the bill, with costs to the