In the District Court of the United States, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the United States of America, petitioner, vs. Motion Picture Patents Company, et al., defendants (1913)

Page scan 000379 from In the District Court of the United States, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the United States of America, petitioner, vs. Motion Picture Patents Company, et al., defendants

Record Details:

Title:
In the District Court of the United States, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the United States of America, petitioner, vs. Motion Picture Patents Company, et al., defendants
Date:
1913
Publisher:
New York, Appeal Printing Co.
Volume:
In the District Court of the United States, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the United States of America, petitioner, vs. Motion Picture Patents Company, et al., defendants : record volume 2
Leaf #:
000379
Language:
English
Collection:
Government & Law and Early Cinema
Format:
Periodicals
Contributor:
The Museum of Modern Art Library, New York
Sponsor:
Media History Digital Library
Coordinator:
Media History Digital Library
Description:
These seven volumes contain the testimonies and supporting documents from the U.S. District Court's antitrust lawsuit against the Motion Picture Patents Company (MPPC). Formed in 1908, the MPPC (sometimes referred to asœ"the Edison Trust" or just "the Trust") sought to control the American film industry through pooling patents and demanding that producers and exhibitors acquire licenses to those patents. Independent producers and exhibitors, who refused to license the patents, argued that the MPPC was an unlawful monopoly. In 1912 and 1913, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania heard testimonies from both MPPC members, such as Siegmund Lubin, and "Independents" who later became Hollywood moguls, such as William Fox. Ultimately, in 1915, the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which found the MPPC in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and spelled the end for the already weakening MPPC. -- Eric Hoyt, 2012
Date Added:
September 12, 2024
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.

William Devery, Cross Examination. 997 bilities of your exchange were about $3,000, did you know that the Special Master, John J. Townsend, who reported upon the condition of your exchange, found that the liabilities were $13,700? A. I did not know anything of the kind. He said that was a matter for the courts at the time of the bankruptcy to decide. Q. And that is set out at page 845 of the printed record? A. There was over $11,000 protested. Mr. Kingsley: I now offer in evidence decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, made May 16th, 1912, entitled, In re Imperial Film Exchange, which appears at page 80 of Volume 198 of the Federal Keporter, and ask that it be incorporated into the record. The same is marked Defendant's Exhibit 10a, and is as follows: Defendants' Exhibit No. 10A. In re IMPERIAL FILM EXCHANGE. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. May 16, 1912.) No. 42. 1. Bankruptcy (§ 72*) — Corporations Subject to Act — "Trading" or "Mercantile Pursuit." A corporation engaged principally in the business of renting films for moving pictures is not engaged in trading or a mercantile pursuit which renders it subject to adjudication as an involuntary bankrupt under Bankr. Act July 1, 1898, c. 511, § lb, 30 Stat. 547 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3123), as amended by Act Feb. 5, 1903, c. 487, § 4, 32 Stat. 797 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1911, p. 1494). [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Bankruptcy, Cent. Dig. § 17; Dec. Dig. § 72.* For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, vol. 5, pp. 4477-4478; vol. 8, p. 7053. What persons are subject to bankruptcy law, see note 3