The film daily year book of motion pictures (1934)

films while the lock was in that condition, which negligence approximately contributed to cause the fire; e — tne bus was damaged $2500." Judgment was for the distributor. The bus line operator appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals of Texas wnich affirmed the judgment of the trial court. It said "... the driver had actual knowledge of the conditions which caused the explosion and tire and with this knowledge accepted the shipment. If it constituted negligence to tender for shipment the small box with the defective lock, then, under the testimony of the driver . . . . , the issue of negligence was raised against him in accepting and transporting the box in its defective condition." The court further held that contracts by common carriers in Texas "against the consequences of their negligence are void." Show Company Bernardi Greater Shows, Inc., vs. Boston & M. K. R. (86 N. H. 146, 165 A. 124— Supreme Court of New Hampshire, Feb. 7, 1933). In this case, a contract under which a railroad company sought to relieve itself from liability for negligence, while transporting a show company in interstate commerce as a common carrier, was held void. "Floater" Insurance National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Frisco Frolics Musical Comedy Co. (65 F. (2d) 928— C.C.A. Wis., July 8, 1933.) This was an action to recover under a "Theatrical Floater Policy" of insurance for loss of theatrical property by tire. At the time of the loss, the property was in transit between two cities, upon a truck owned by the insured and driven by his employee. The policy provided : "This Policy Insures against loss * * * during the time the property insured hereunder is in transit by and/or in custody of any railroad, express, transfer or other transportation company, licensed public truckman, or other common carrier for transportation." There was a verdict for the insured and the Insurance Company appealed. The Appellate Court reversed the judgment and said : "It is quite clear that the contrart purports to insure theatrical property while it is in thte custody of persons other than the owner, or in the possession of stich persons for the purpose of transit." * * * "Insurance companies may by contract limit their liability as they please * * * and the policy is the sole source of the parties' obligation. * * * The terms of the policy are certain and unambiguous, and appellee failed to bring itself within those terms." Comment: Transportation by theater companies in cars driven by their own employees is seemingly not covered against loss under this type of "Theatrical Floater Policy." THEATER ACCESSORIES AND EQUIPMENT Stanley Co. of America, Inc. vs. American Te.ephone & Telegraph Co., et al., (4 F. Supp. 80 — United States District Court, Delaware, June 28. 1933). This case is one of the most important decisions of the year, and the opinion of the court therein lias bec-n fully set out on another page hereof. The agreement contained in that general form of "license" used in "leasing" talking apparatus to exhibitors whereby the exhibitors agreed to purchase all repair and replacement parts was held to be illegal. The same was held of the agreement requiring producers who recorded on Erpi, not to distribute talking motion pictures so re corded to theaters and exhibitions who did not use the Krpi "talkie" reproducing equipment. The writer expressly withtholds comment on the property of actions under the Clayton Act against Krpi for treble the difference between the price charged for parts under the agreement and what they could have been purchased for in the open market, as such a suit is now pending in I Mawarc. Replevin of Chairs National Theatre Supply Company, vs. Misbler Theatre Co., (213 Pa. 2s0. 167 A. 324 — Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, June 30, 1933). One, Mishler, owned a theater property in Altoona, Pa. He sold it to the defendant and took back a mortgage. The defendant then began to operate the theater. Several years later, a theater equipment company installed opera chairs in the theater under a conditional sales contract, which was filed. Cater, the defendant defaulted under the mortgage. Mishler bought the property upon the foreclosure sale and sold it to an outsider. Subsequently, the defendant defaulted if) a payment under the conditional sales contract and the plaintiff sued in replevin to recover possession of the chairs. The defendant contended that the opera chairs being securely fastened to the floor were an essential part of the theater and passed with the realty when Mishler resold it after th; foreclosure sale. The court held that recording of the conditional siles contract was notice to the one who bought the theater property from Mishler and affirmed the judgment in favor of the plaintiff under the Pennsylvania Law. Replevin of Equipment United Projector & Film Corporation vs. Brown et aL (145 Misc. 412, 216 N. Y. S. 269 — Supreme Court, Erie Co. N. Y., Nov. 7, 1932). In this case the Court held that an action to replevin theatre equ pment under a conditional sale contract was not a local action and could be tried in the county in which either of the parties resided at the time the action was commenced, and not necessarily in the county in which the equipment was located. Comment: If this decision correctly states the law (as it seemingly does), equipment companies with their main offices in New York City, may bring such actions against N. Y. State exhibitors in New York County, instead of in the county where the exhibitor resides or in which the equipment is located. Storage of Equipment by Landlord Yeazey v. Electrical Research Products, Inc. (226 Ala. 60, 145, S. 319— Supreme Court of Alabama, December 22, 1932, rehearing denied January 19. 1933.) Erpi installed a talking motion picture reproducing apparatus in a theater under a written lease or license contract with an exhibitor. The exhibitor gave up the theater operation. The owner of the theater then disconnected the equipment from the power system and stored it away. Erpi sued to recover the outfit. The theater owner claimed a lien on the equipment for the value of the use and occupation thereof. The Court held in favor of Erpi against the theater owner. Implied Warranty in Sound Equipment General Talking Pictures Corporation vs. Shea (61 S. W. (2d) 430— Supreme Court of Arkansas, June 12, 1933, rehearing denied July 10. 1933). This was an action to recover possession of a talkie equipment. A talking motion picture machine was leased to an exhibitor under a license agreement providing for certain payments thereunder. The contrast provided that it should be construed in accordance with the laws of the state of New York. The exhibitor discontinued the! payments and 685