Year book of motion pictures (1928)

the names and addresses of their officers, directors and employees and the salaries they receive, and showing also the various benefits furnished to members of such organization or corporation and the membership fees and dues charged or collected by such organization or corporation from its members. * * * AMENDMENT TO SECTION 36, CIVIL CODE, REGARDING RIGHTS OF MINOR WITH PRODUCER ON A CONTRACT. A minor cannot disaffirm a contract otherwise valid, to perform or render services as actor, actress, or other dramatic services, where such contract has been approved by tbe Supreme Court of the County where such minor resides or is employed. Such approval may be given on the petition of either party to the contract, after such reasonable notice to the other party thereto as may be fixed by said court, with opportunity to such other party to appear and be heard. This new law does not take any rights away from the minor, and at the same time does not put the producer at a disadvantage, such as he has been handicapped with in the past. A minor has always been a ward of the court and the purpose of the new law is to receive the sanction of the court for any contracts to be signed by a minor, and if the court is satisfied that the contract is fair and equitable, then the contract is approved by the court, and cannot be disaffirmed, but must be carried out in its entirety. * * * AMENDMENT TO CIVIL CODE, REGARDING AGE AT WHICH MINORS REACH MATURITY. Prior to July 29, 1927, a female reached her majority at 18 years, but the amendment, was changed on July 29 to 21 years. This amendment makes both the male and female age of majority the same, namely, 21 years. In order for a minor to file suit, it is necessary for a guardian "Ad litem" (for the purpose of the suit), to be appointed, who, as a rule, is the parent of the minor. * * * Laws and Decisions Affecting Distribution-Exhibition IMPORTANT ARBITRATION BOARD DECISIONS CONTRACT MUST HOLD, ARBITRATORS INSTRUCTED — Arbitrators are not bound by technical rules of evidence, but are without power or authority to "adopt or apply any rule which shall be at variance with any of the provisions of the Standard Exhibition Contract, or any other contract between the parties, or the rights and obligations of the parties thereunder, the Hays organization instructed Film Board of Trade arbitrators, in a code sent to all Boards in Nov., 1927. The code is based upon "Suggestions of the American Arbitration Ass'n for the Guidance of Arbitration." EXHIBITOR CANNOT HOLD PRINT TO USE AS A CLUB — An exhibitor who has money due him from a distributor may not hold a print in order to force payment of that claim, the Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia, in October, 1927, found in upholding a verdict of the Philadelphia Arbitration Board, granting Pathe damages against the Sunbury & Selinsgrove Railway Co., which operates the Rolling Green Park. After playing a contracted picture, the railway company refused to return the print until repayment of a $50 deposit which it had advanced. When this was refused, arbitration action was started and Pathe was awarded $1,080 and an additional sum of $20 a day until the print was returned. The action and decision were ignored by the railway company. The film subsequently was replevined and the damage action started. COURT DENIES MOTION ON CREDIT SYSTEM CASE — Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, in October, 1927, denied application of James Hartlove, of the Flag theater, Baltimore, Md., for injunction to force exchanges to supply films without payment of $500 deposit to each D. of C. exchange. In denying the motion, the court said : "The court does not deem it necessary, at this stage of the case, to further discuss, in this memorandum, the various allegations, counter allegations, charges, counter charges, denials, etc., as set forth in the amended bill of complaint and in the two sets of affidavits. Suffice it to say that it appears therefrom that, when the credit committee came to consider plaintiff's request for a credit rating, as preliminary to obtaining films, it found itself confronted with a situation somewhat as follows : "A former proprietor of the theater had failed to keep his contract engagements, to the financial loss of the film exchanges, then came plaintiff's father, and he, too, defaulted in the performance of his contracts, although, apparently he had had some ten years' experience in the moving picture business, and again financial loss resulted to the film exchanges ; and then came the son, having had no previous experience in the business, being engaged in the bakery business, and he sought to secure from the defendants contracts for films. "From investigation made by the credit committee, it was of opinion that the alleged transfer of the business from father to son was colorable only, and to avoid performance of his existing contract obligations, and that the father really would continue to operate the business, but under the name of his son. "Having in mind the experience of the past concerning the Flag theater, as well as the additional matter stated, the credit committee reached the conclusion that the financial risk was not a good one and that it should exact a cash security of $500 for each exchange supplying films to plaintiff ; not, however, the maximum of $1,000 as permitted by the rules of the board. "Under the present state of the record, the court is unable to say that the requirement that the plaintiff furnish cash security is either arbitrary, unreasonable, or improper. No showing whatever is made herein of any unwillingness on the part of the defendants to supply the plaintiff with films, if they can be appropriately secured against loss. If the facts be as contended by defendants, it would seem that the situation as to the Flag theater was one where security might properly be required." VERBAL PACTS ARE NOT BINDING— Verbal promises not embodied in the contract are not binding upon a distributor and performance for any part of a contract makes binding the entire part of a contract, the Milwaukee Arbitration Board ruled in Sept., 1927, in case brought by Vitagraph against M. A. Manning, Opera House, Baldwin, Wis. A seventh arbitrator was necessary to reach decision. Manning claimed he signed the contract because of promises of service made to him by the salesman and because of alleged threats to sell this contract to his competitor. He further claimed that he signed at a price that reduced his profits to almost nothing, and that several pictures in the contract could not be delivered as sold. He also stated that some of the pictures were of such character that it meant loss of patronage to show them. The board came to a deadlock, and called in a seventh arbitrator. The latter, in 781