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.

38 That lio made the represention and promise v\ith the intention of bein^ relied on cannot be gainsaid, in view of the fact that Mr. Dyer expressly stated that the license could not be assigned to the Melies Company, if any Exchange or one interested therein should be interested in said Company, or the owner of stock therein. Theretofore, that is, prior to September 18ih, 1908, it will be remembered that the question of the issuance of the new license to the Melies Conipany had been taken up by Mr. Dyer with Messrs. Melies and Lodge. Subsequent thereto, and about September 10th, Mr. Dyer, was notified by Messrs. Spoor and Selig that the Melies Company through Mr. Lodge was sending out circulars to Exchanges and others requesting subscriptions to stock. This Mr. Dyer called to Mr. Melies' attention, and as a result Mr. Melies and Mr. Lodge went to see Mr. Dyer. Having this knowledge in mind Mr Dyer showed the circular to Mr. Lodge and told him that the licensees were opposed to the issuance of any license to an Exchange, or to allowing any Exchange or owner thereof to have an interest therein, and he then stated to Mr. Lodge that such license would not be issued unless it was distinctly understood that no Exchange should be interested in tlie Melies Company, or the owner of stock therein, to which, as above stated, Mr. Lodge acquiesced and made the above representation and promise. Necessarily therefore his representation and promise was made with the expectation of reliance being plared therein. That Mr. Dyer, acting for the Edison Company, believed the same, and in reliance thereon consented to the transfer of the licenses to the Melies Company, appears from uncontradicted testimony. The consent to the transfer was given upon the representations made, and it was not until December 18th of the same year that Mr. Dyer was advised at the meeting of the licensees, by Messrs. Spoor and Selig, that Mr. Lodge had played false, that is, had sold 350 shares of stock to Mr. Lewis. Mr. Dyei's belief, and his acting upon the strength (>f the re[)resentations, is conclusive proof of this point. It is presumed that a person is misled by a false misrepresentation.