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.
49
tember 18th, 1908, made by the Edison Company with complainant, that there was a distinct setting forth of a condition subsequent upon the happerjing of which complainant's rights in the license agreement were ipso facto forfeited and terminated.
That complainant has created a breach of this condition subsequent, as a result of which the Edison Company became entitled to rescind tiie license agreement is apparent from the fact that out of the 750 shares of the complainant's stock 350 became the property of Max Lewis, for many years interested in one of the Exchanges in Chicago, all of which stock afterwards, together with 322 shares owned by Mr Lodge and 50 shares owned by Mr. Carter were transferred under a voting trust agreement to Messrs. Howe and Dunn. In addition to the foregoing the immerous infractions by complainant and its officers of the contract of August 3rd, 1908, enteied into with George and Gaston Melies made it in)possil)le for Messrs. Gaston and George Melies to continue their connection with the complainant company, as a result of which the resignation of Mr. Gaston Melies as President and director, and of his brother as director of the company were submitted in June of 1909.
Every provision of the condition subsequent has been broken by complainant, as a lesult of which the Edison Company has become remitted to its former rights, it having notified complainant on December 18th, 19o8, at the time the Picture Patents Con)pany meeting took place, that no license would be issued to complainant oil account of the fraud of its officer and the breach of the condition in the contract of September ISth.
This collateral contract dated Sej^tcmber 18, 1908, was signed and delivci ed at the same time as the instrument transferring the license agreements, although the latter is dated November 2, 1908. A copy is set forth in the statement of facts above.
We do not believe it necessary to ent^'r into a discussion as to whether or not the provision referred to was a condition subsequent, or a conditional limitation. No promises on the part of complainant being inserted therein, it is apparent that the same did not con