The film daily year book of motion pictures (1936)

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.

LEASES Landlord and Tenant — Removal of Equipment to Other House — Conversion — Damages In Caron Enterprises v. State Operating Company/^ a theater owner leased to a circuit a theater at Manchester, New Hampshire, "with the appurtenances, together with the entrance and approaches to and exits therefrom, the marquee and electric sign in front of the same, and also the furniture, equipment, and other articles of personal property used in connection with the operation and maintenance of said theater." After the exhibitor had run the theater for about two months he closed it and moved its furnishings over to another theater nearby which he operated. These included the moving picture machines, booth equipment, ticket selling machines, carpets, rugs, drapes, film cabinets, lamps, lenses, etc. More than a year after the circuit had removed this equipment and while the lease had many years to run, the landlord sued the exhibitor for conversion. The Supreme Court of New Hampshire held that removal of the equipment by the exhibitor was a breach of the lease and the exhibitor was held liable for conversion of the property. COMMENT The Court held that the only reasonable construction to be given the language of the lease was that the contents of the theater were to be treated as a part of it for the purpose of the lease whether it was attached to the realty or not. The Court held the exhibitor liable even though the landlord had accepted rent for the closed theater after the equipment had been removed. The landlord argued that it had a right to expect the property to remain in the theater as added protection against loss if the exhibitor defaulted and further that the exhibitor by leasing the theater had "got rid of a competitor . . . and equipped other theaters at the plaintiff's expense." The Court held the measure of damages was the value of the equipment at the time it was moved to the other theater together with interest up to the date of judgment. _ Whether the exhibitor could get a reduction in rent if the landlord recovered judgment for the value of the equipment in the instant case was recognized but not decided by the Court. This decision has been forcibly attacked in the Cornell Law Quarterly"' on the ground that there had been no harm to the equipment especially as it was put to no different or harder use. Exhibitor and Landlord — Attachment — Constructive Eviction In Kimball v. Lincoln Theaters Corp.^^^ the Supreme Court of Nebraska held, under the terms of a lease, that a landlord had the right to attach the exhibitor's equipment in the theater for the collection of rent due and that the attachment, if unlawful when made, might make the landlord liable in damages but it did not necessarily follow that there was a constructive eviction. COMMENT The Court said that "there are clearly some acts of interference by the landlord with the tenant's enjoyment of the premises which do not amount to an eviction, but which may be either mere acts of trespass or eviction, according to the intention with which they are done." Apparently the Court found that the question was one for a jury to decide and as they decided in the landlord's favor on the question of fact, the judgment should stand. Lessee and Public In Bellon v. Silver Gate Theaters,^^" a theater company owned a building in San Diego, Cal., which contained a theater, stores, offices and several basements. A plumber working in the basement was killed when a plumber's snake with which he was working contacted with a defectively insulated electric dropcord negligently maintained in the basement in violation of a city ordinance. The question before the Court was : "whether the basement where the injury occurred was under the legal control of . . . landlord or ... of the tenants who had leased the stores." The Court held that whether the basement passed under the lease of the stores was a question of fact for the jury to decide. COMMENT The liability of the landlord could have been avoided if the lease had set forth whether or not the tenant had control of the basement. Theater Lease — Moot Question — Injunction In Blythe v. Yates^*^ Yates sold his picture show equipment to Blythe. Under the contract Yates agreed not to directly or indirectly engage in the show business in a certain town for a period of ten years as affected Blythe or his estate. Blythe died. Blythe's wife leased the equipment to a man named Stallings who commenced operating a show with it. Yates recommenced operating a picture show. Mrs. Blythe and Stallings then applied for a temporary injunction to restrain Yates from operating his competitive picture show. The lower court granted the injunction. A Texas Appellate Court dissolved the injunction. While their appeal from the latter ruling to the Texas Commission of Appeals was pending, Mrs. Blythe and Stallings disposed of their interest in the property. 827