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.
QUESTION WHETHER CONTRACT IS PERSONAL ONE 67
30. On the question whether the contract may be rescinded
where the author made a poor bargain or where fraud is involved.
31. On the question whether the contract may be rescinded where
the producer made a poor bargain or where fraud is involved.
32. On the question whether a contract to write will be specifically
enforced.
33. On the question whether the licensor may maintain an action
against third parties.
34. On the question whether courts grant injunctions pendente
lite more readily in actions of this nature.
Section 14. — On the question whether the contract existing between the parties is a personal one.
It has been generally settled that contracts between authors or proprietors of literary works with producers are personal and are not assignable by either party without the consent of the other.1 * 3 Thus, where a license is
1 “Contracts in which the personal acts and qualities of one of the contracting parties form a material ingredient are, in general not assignable.” 2 Chitty on Contracts, 11th Am. Ed., p. 1363. To the same effect: Mallory v. Mackay (1899), 92 Fed. (C. C. A.) 749; Blakely v. Sousa (1900), 197 Pa. St. 305; 47 Atl. 286; Sloan v. Williams (1891), 138 111. 43; 27 N. E. 531; Wooster v. Crane
(1907), 66, Atl. 1093; Oliver v. Rumford (1883), 109 U. S. 75;
3 Sup. Ct. 1.61; Tuttle v. La Dow (1889), 54 Hun (N. Y.), 149; 7
N. Y. Supp. 277; N. Y. Phonograph Co. v. Davega (1908), 127 A. D. (N. Y.) 222; 111 N. Y. Supp. 363; Booth v. Richards (Eng.) (1910), Times, July 14; Hole v. Bradbury (Eng.) (1879), 12 Ch. D. 886; 41 L. T. R. 153; Stevens v. Benning (Eng.) (1854), 1 K. & J. 169; 24 L. T. R. (O. S.) 154; Reade v. Bentley (Eng.) (1857), 3 K. & J. 271; 30 L. T. R. (O. S.) 268; Griffith v. Tower Publ. Co. (Eng.) (1897), 1 Ch. 21; 75 L. T. R. (N. S.) 330.
See in this connection: Stand