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 000381 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 #:
000381
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. 999 court has held corporations outside the act whose business much more nearly approached trading than that of the alleged bankrupt. See Re YVentworth Lunch Co., 159 Fed. 413, 86 C. C. A. 393, affirmed 217 U. S. 591, 30 Sup. Ct. 691, 51 L. Ed. 895 ; Re Kingston Realty Co., 160 Fed. 445, 87 C. C. A. 406; R. Altonwood Park Co., 160 Fed. 448, 87 C. C. A. 409. [2] The only ground upon which the petitioners can possibly stand is that their petition alleged upon its face the necessary jurisdictional facts and that they were not controverted. And, if the petition were sufficient, there would be much foundation for this contention because it appears that the corporation did not deny in its answer the allegations concerning the nature of its business. The relevant averments of the petition are these: "That the said Imperial Film Exchange, for the greater portion of six months preceding the date of the filing of this petition, has been engaged in the business of selling and leasing moving pictures, films, machines, and accessories for the exhibition of moving pictures, and has its principal place of business at No. 44 West Twenty-Eighth street, borough of Manhattan, city of New York. That the said Imperial Film Exchange is not a wage earner, nor person engaged chiefly in farming or the tillage of the soil, and is not a national bank or bank incorporated under the state or territorial laws, and your petitioners further allege that the said Imperial Film Exchange owes debts to the amount of fl,000 and over." Assuming that the business of selling moving picture films, machines, and accessories is within the act, the difficulty is that it is not alleged that the principal business of the corporation was such selling. It was not enough to allege that a part of the business of the corporation was within the statute. It was necessary to allege what its principal business was. As said by the Supreme Court in Toxaway Hotel Co. v. Smathers, supra: "It may have been engaged in doing two distinct kinds of business. But unless this corporation was 'engaged principally' in mercantile pursuits it was not amenable to the act." Taking the petition as it stands, there is nothing to negative what appears to have been the fact that the principal business of the corporation was leasing picture films,