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.

WHAT ARE FIXTURES? 233 between such chairs as were, and such as were not fastened to the floor.27 Intention of the parties is of paramount importance,28 although such intention may be spelt out by the fact that a chattel mortgage was placed upon the articles in question.29 Lighting and Gas Appliances that are essential to the operation of the theatre are fixtures.30 This is especially true where these appliances have been so built as to harmonize with the general decoration of the theatre, thereby showing an intent part of the realty.31 27 Security Trust Co. v. Temple Co. (1904), 67 N. J. Eq. 514; 58 Atl. 865. 28 Sosman v. Conlon (1894), 57 Mo. App. *25. In an action to establish a mechanic’s hen it was held that the test whether the materials furnished for the building of the theatre were fixtures, was whether such materials were furnished and received with the intention of forming an integral part of the theatre. To the same effect: Halley v. Alloway (1882), 78 Tenn. 523. 29 Andrews v. Chandler (1888) , 27 111. App. 103. Held that chairs contained in an opera house were not fixtures upon the ground it was the intention of the owners of the opera house and those furnishing the chairs that they should not be regarded as such, to make them a permanent such intention being evidenced, among other things, by a chattel mortgage given thereon. 30 Security Trust Co. v. Temple Co. (1904), 67 N. J. Eq. 514; 58 Atl. 865. But see: McKeage v. Hanover Fire Ins. Co. (1880), 81 N. Y. 38; N. Y. Life Ins. Co. v. Allison (1901), 107 Fed. (C. C. A.) 179. 31 Wahle-Phillips Co. v. Fitzgerald (1914), 83 Misc. (N. Y.) 636; 146 N. Y. Supp. 562; aff’d 157 N. Y. Supp. 1150. Action to foreclose mechanic’s hen upon a theatre building and office building. The question was whether certain lighting fixtures were part of the realty. Judge Cohalan held that the lighting fixtures in the office building were not of a permanent character. But that in the theatre