Brief for appellees motion picture patents company and Edison manufacturing company (1913)

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.

23 POINTS. I. The evidence shows that complainant, hy its ag'ent, Lodg'e, in obtaining the Edison license, September 18, 1908, made fraudulent misrepresentations which exclude it from the equitable relief it seeks, on the g^round that it does not come into Court with clean hands. Appellant's statement (Applt.'s Br., p. 67), that it is impossible fairly to presume a fraudulent intent from the facts has an odd look, in face of the opinion of the learned judge below, that " The evidence shows that the complainant not only has failed to perform certain promises and undertakings on its part, which largely constituted the consideration for which it was to be licensed, but at the very time of so promising and undertaking did not intend to fulfil its engagements, but had an intention at that time not to observe its promises and undertakings." While the evidence sustaining this deliberate conclusion of the court below is summarized in appellee's statement of the fact (pp. 6, et seq. above), it may, nevertheless, be permitted, in reply to appellant's attempt to talk away the evidence, to emphasize once more the vital facts proved. There can be no doubt that Lodge, acting for appellant corporation intentionally made Dyer understand that the Melies Company stock would not be sold to anyone interested in an Exchange. Lodge came perilously close to admitting this at page 523, lines 27-30: " A. Now I do not want to answer that question that way, sir. I want to say this, that I promised I ivould not and they wanted me not to sell any more, and asked me if I would endeavor not to, and if possible to eliminate those I did sell."