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.

30 Federal Oil Co. vs. Western Oil Co., 121 Fed., 6Tt. Cowan vs. Curran, 216 111., 598, 622. Burling vs. King, 2 T. & C, 545. McPherson vs. Schale, 149 N. Y., 16, 21. iZe/Zer vs. Co/jew. 164 N. Y., 299, 306. Though the representations were in the form of PROMISES they were NONE THE LESS FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATIONS WHEN COUPLED WITH THE SECRET INTENT NOT TO FULFIL THEM. See Rogers vs. Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co., 149 Fed., 1, cited in the opinion of the Court below; see also authorities cited in support of our Third Point below. There was never any waiver by appellees of appellant's fraud. We do not feel it necessary to comment at length on appellant's Third Point. The testimony upon which appellant hangs this argument is hopelessly discredited, not only by the testimony of Melies and Dyer, but also by the sequence of events. It will be noticed that the interview at which complainant avers the story of Lewis' connection with the Melies Company was poured into Dyer's ears, took place about November 1, 1908, six weeks before the eventful meeting of manufacturers on December 18. Mr. Dyer's denial that Max Lewis' name was brought into the discussion on November 1 was emphatic (pp. 544, 545). His memory was by no means weak or hesitating on this point. On the contrary, it was distinct that the interview took a very few moments and was of slight importance (p. 544). Mr, Melies' testimony was likewise explicit and emphatic to the same effect. Max Lewis' name was not mentioned during that interview (pp. 553, 554). The whole course of subsequent actions, the conversations at the meeting of December 18, which were testified to in detail, the terms of the subsequent negotiations of