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.
ADVERTISING MATTER, PROGRAMS, BILL-POSTERS 229
Under a contract for display on a drop curtain it was held that plaintiff could recover for the weeks when performances in the theatre were given.18
Where the owner of the theatre had contracted with the plaintiff for a drop curtain, and the latter, on the strength of this, had erected the curtain and entered into advertising contracts with third parties, the owner of the theatre was compelled to permit the use of the curtain in the theatre during the term of the contract.19
made pursuant to a sample lithograph furnished to plaintiff by defendant, it was reversible error for the court to refuse to charge that “if the jury find that they [the lithographs] were not according to the sketches the plaintiffs cannot recover,” the appellate court holding that under a general or specific denial the defendant might give evidence which showed or tended to show that the evidence relied upon by the plaintiff to establish a material fact was untrue.
David Allen Bill-posting v. King (Irish) (1915), Div. Ct., 2 I. R. 213. Defendant, proprietor of a theatre, held liable for breach of a contract for bill posting.
18 Imperial Curtain Co. v. Strauss (1912), 76 Misc. (N. Y.) 533; 135 N. Y. Supp. 577. When in a contract for the display of defendant’s advertisement on a
theatre drop curtain, the defendant agreed to pay a specified sum per week during the period of the contract and “credit was to be given for each entire week” the advertisement was not shown: Held that plaintiff was obligated to display the advertisement during those weeks when performances were given and was entitled to recover for display of the advertisement after defendant had directed its discontinuance.
19 Beer v. Canary (1896), 2 A. D. (N. Y.) 518; 38 N. Y. Supp. 23. Defendants agreed to permit plaintiff to erect a curtain in front of the proscenium of their theatre, the curtain to be covered by advertisements and the plaintiff to pay a monthly rental for the privilege. Held that plaintiff was entitled to an order directing defendant to use