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.
48
that the defendant was induced to enter into the (•ontracts by false and fiaudiilent representations. The fact of the i epresentations being made by an agent and not by tl)e principal does not alter the question, as there is no proof that the agent was not authotized to make the lepresentation, and besides if the party is induced to enter into a contr-Act by false representations upon the part of an agent, the princijjal cannot claim the co)itract freed from the iepresentations.'^
See also upon this point, Wilcox vs. Hoivell, 44 N. Y., 398, 402; Bridger vs. Goldsmith, 143 N. Y., 424. 42s.
V.
Tlie license ag'reements have automatically ceased and determined by reason of the breaclies of the conditions subsequent contained in the collateral and conciarrent agreement dated September 18, 1908.
There have been two distinct breaches of the conditions subsequent of the collateral agreement of September 18, 1908, as a result of either of which breach the licenses automatically ceased and determined.
First. "Control" of the George Melies Company "passed" in November, 1908, by virtue of the execution of the so-called trust agreement from Carter and Lodge to Howe and Dunn, the voting trustees under tliat agreement (Defendant's Exhibit 7, p. 166).
Second. Gaston Melies has, without any collusion with the defendants, resigned as President and director of tlie company, and has not been succeeded in such office by his son, Paul Melies, or by George Melies.
Dealing for the present only with the first of these breaches, it appears from the collateral agreement of Sep