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.

242 THE LAW OF MOTION' PICTURES A covenant against assignmentsis valid; but where there have been numerous assignees, and the lessor has accepted rent from all, this would amount to a waiver on the part of the lessor.49 In building and other contracts for the construction of theatres, it is well to define with every degree of exactness what the theatre building is to be, with special reference to the unique elements of the building, such as the proscenium, stage, seats and so on.50 .And for delay in such construction, the lessee may, in an action for the rent, counterclaim for damages sustained by him by reason of such delay,51 or the lessee is entitled to maintain an action 49 Nelson Theatre Co. v. Nelson (1913), 216 Mass. 30; 109 N. E. 926. Where defendant had leased a theatre to a tenant with the usual covenants against assignments unless consented to in writing, and where the tenant had subsequently assigned without such written consent, and there had been subsequent assignments without written consents, and the defendant had accepted rent from all these assignees: Held, that he would be enjoined from ousting the last tenant, as his acceptance of the rent amounted to a waiver of that clause in the lease. Held also that evidence of experts on the receipts of the theatre for the past year as a basis for computing the damages was admissible. 30 Neher v. Viviani (1910), 15 N. M. 460; 110 Pac. 695, passes on the meaning of a building contract for a theatre, and holds in particular that the phrase “a modern thirty thousand dollar theatre building” includes in addition to the bare building, the usual necessary permanent equipment, such as plumbing, heating and lighting apparatus, seats, curtains and scenery adapted to and intended for use in that particular building, but not the piano, furniture, carpets, etc. 51 New York Academy of Music v. Hacked (1858), 2 Hilt. (N. Y.) 217. Defendant leased plaintiff premises for two months, plaintiff to use diligence in completing the construction of building,