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.
230
THE LAW OF MOTION PICTURES
But where the owner of the curtain is remiss in the payment of his rentals, the owner of the theatre may rescind the contract and remove the curtain.20
A change in the character of the productions given at the theatre from high-class to cheap and inferior drama and vaudeville, breaches the contract, and the curtain may be removed.21
In a contract for program advertising made for three theatres, it was held that the contract was not divisible, and a closing of one of the theatres breached the entire contract.22 And in a contract of this kind made for the
the curtain, it appearing that plaintiff had been put to some expense in furnishing and setting up the curtain and had entered into contracts for the display of advertisements thereon, the order of special term denying the motion for an injunction pendente lite being reversed.
20 Bellinck v. Tacoma Theatre Co. (1910), 61 Wash. 132; 111 Pac. 1045. Defendant permitted plaintiff to hang an advertising curtain in its theatre for which it was to receive $175 a month payable in advance. Plaintiff made partial payments. Defendant rescinded the contract, and the court held that while the contract was silent on that point, that time was nevertheless of the essence of the contract, and plaintiff was properly non-suited.
21 Nixon & Zimmerman v. Lee Lash Co. (1911), 46 Pa. Sup. Ct. 89. Where the owner of a drop curtain contracts to put his curtain in a theatre, for a term of five years, and after a time the performances given at the house are changed from legitimate dramatic productions to cheap vaudeville, the contract is breached and the owner of the curtain may take it back and be relieved from future payments under the contract.
22 Hazzard v. Hoxsie (1889), 53 Hun (N. Y.), 417; 6 N. Y. Supp. 295. The action was brought upon a contract:
“I hereby agree to pay Edward J. Hazzard the sum of $8.50 per week for publishing my advertisement in the Fifth Avenue, Union Square and Lyceum Thea