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.
234
THE LAW OF MOTION PICTURES
The Switchboard was also held to be a fixture as well as the wires and lighting plant.32
The Drop Curtain has been held to be an integral part of the realty and not capable of being removed.33
Scenery which is not of a permanent character and not fastened in particular to anything is not a fixture,34 al
building the lighting fixtures were part of a scheme to harmonize with the decorations and interior construction of that part of the building. To the same effect : Wahle-Phillips Co. v. FiftyNinth Street and Madison Are. Company (1912), 153 A. D. (N. Y.) 17; 138 N. Y. Supp. 13; aff’d 214 N. Y. 684; 108 N. E. 1110.
32 Webb v. New Haven Theatre (1913), 87 Conn. 129; 87 Atl. 274. Held that the lighting plant, switchboard, wires and the like were fixtures and not removable, even where the lessee had taken out the old ones and replaced them by a new plant, since the house was practically useless without such plant, and an intent to make it a permanent part of the freehold had to be presumed.
33 Bender v. King (1901), 111 Fed. (C. C.) 60; Waycross v. Sossman (1S94), 94 Ga. 100; 20 S. E. 252.
3 4 Bender v. King (1901), 111 Fed. (C. C.) 60. Held that opera house chairs screwed to the ground, appliances to facilitate handling of scenery during performances and drop curtain were fixtures and went with the realty; that scenery which was in no way attached to the building and was shown to be capable of being used in other buildings was personalty. To the same effect: Security Trust Co. v. Temple Co. (1904), 67 N. J. Eq. 514; 58 Atl. 865; New York Life Ins. Co. v. Allison (1901), 107 Fed. (C. C. A.) 179.
But see: Sosman v. C onion (1894), 57 Mo. App. 25. Held that while stage fittings and scenery were removable, the}' were nevertheless fixtures.
“The question is not whether they composed integral parts of a building, but whether they were furnished or received with the intention of forming integral parts of a theatre building. . . .”