The law of motion pictures (1918)

Record Details:

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.

CONTRACTS FOR TRANSPORTATION — DAMAGES 193 But the actor who so performs must have actual notice of the fact that his performance is unlicensed. The distinction is made between ignorance of the law and ignorance of a fact; and the want of notice on the actor’s part in this case would be ignorance of a fact only, and would not bar a recovery.225 From the foregoing it may be concluded that a distributor, who has contracted for film rental with an exhibitor who has failed to secure the proper license from the authorities, may recover damages for the breach, providing he is unaware of the exhibitor’s derelictions. In dealing with the exhibitor he is not bound to make any special inquiries, as he may be permitted to assume that the theatre is licensed. That presumption exists in law.226 Section 67. — Contracts for transportation — damages. When a common carrier undertakes the transportation T. L. R. 664; aff’d 22 T. L. R. 684; Scott v. McNaughton (Eng.) (1908), Times, Nov. 25th. 225 Roys v. Johnson et al. (1856) , 7 Gray (Mass.), 162. The actor rendered his services and brought this action to secure compensation therefor. Defendants set up the fact that the plaintiff acted in an unlicensed theatrical exhibition and not entitled to compensation as the giving of an unlicensed theatrical performance was unlawful. Held that so long as plaintiff did not know that the performance was unlicensed he was entitled to recover, and defendants would not be permitted to sustain such defense, having themselves been guilty of the unlawful act. 226 Rodwell v. Redge (Eng.), 1 C. & P.220; 11E. C. L. 374. The action was brought against an actor for breach of contract for failure to appear. Held that there was a presumption that the theatre was licensed from the fact that performances had been going on uninterruptedly.