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 (1914)

Page scan 000151 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:
1914
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 6
Leaf #:
000151
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.

Jeremiah J. Kennedy, Direct Examination. 3183 J. KENNEDY, to me known, who, being by me duly sworn, did depose and say, that he resided in the Borough of Brooklyn, City of Xew York, State of New York; that he is the President of the GENERAL FILM COMPANY, one of the corporations described in, and which executed the above instrument; that he knew the seal of said corporation; that the seal affixed to said instrument was said corporate seal; that it was so affixed by order of the Board of Directors of the said corporation, and that he signed his name thereto by like order. Clinton D. Ganse, [Seal.] Notary Public, Kings County. Certificate filed in New York County. By Mr. Kingsley : Q. Acton R. Boone, who was a witness in this proceeding, testified at pages 1213-1214, Vol. II of the record, after reciting the fact of the sale of the motion pictures, stock and equipment of the Theatre Film Supply Company of Birmingham, that none of the stock had been given him. Have you any explanation to make of that statement of Mr. Boone's? A. Yes. The stock was held as collateral — as part of collateral — also for $3,000 which was advanced him, subject to the condition that the stock should be held and all dividends accruing upon it, and all instalments Incoming due under the contract, should be applied to the payment of the indebtedness of $3,000, and when that indebtedness was extinguished or paid, he was to receive his stock. At the same time, he was informed that when the stock was ready for delivery, he might pay whatever balance of his indebtedness remained unpaid and receive his stock at any time. lie never offered, during my connection with the company, to make any payments on account of the money advanced. I have a copy of a letter, I think, in which that is set forth. I am not sure. Q. Will you kindly produce it? Is this a correct copy of a letter which you sent to Acton R. Boone, March 21st, 1912? A. It is. Q. Did you dictate the original of the letter of which this is a copy? A. I did, and signed it. Q. Was this letter sent in response to a telegram which