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.
WHEN JOINT VENTURE
187
comes liable to the injured party for whatever damages he has sustained thereby.
Section 62. — When joint venture.
The fact that an actor and a manager agree to share the receipts of a play does not necessarily stamp the transaction as a joint venture. An agreement to share
in the losses is the true test
211 Thomas v. Springer (1909), 134 A. D. (N. Y.) 640; 119 N. Y. Supp. 460. An agreement between a manager of a theatrical company and a theatre owner whereby the latter is to receive a percentage of the gross receipts, the proprietor of the theatre to furnish the scenery, equipment and regular employes of the theatre, does not create a partnership. The parties are independent contractors. Unless there be an agreement to share profits and losses there is no copartnership.
Keith v. Kellerman (1909), 169 Fed. (C. C.) 196. The agreement between the parties provided that defendant was to render her specialty as actress, in consideration of fifty per cent of the profits. It was held that the contract was not one of copartnership but one of employment; the test being “whether
of a joint venture.211
the parties are jointly interested as principals and may bind each other by their acts or engagements within the scope of the enterprise.”
Mallory v. Mackaye (1899), 92 Fed. (C. C. A.) 749. Plantiff, a theatrical manager, contracted with defendant, an actor, whereby defendant agreed to render his exclusive services to plaintiff as an actor, author, director and inventor, all of his creations to become the property of the plaintiff in consideration for all of which plaintiff bound himself to pay defendant a specified sum per annum and in addition thereto a portion of the profits. The relationship existing between them was held to be that of employer and employe and not that of joint ventures.
See also: Mayer v. Nether sole (1902), 71 A. D. (N. Y.) 383; 75 N. Y. Supp. 987; Goldberg v,