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.
244
THE LAW OF MOTION PICTURES
Agreements between the theatre owner and adjoining property owners to break through walls for the purpose of making exits and vestibules must be made as provided for by the ordinances of the local authorities. Otherwise the contract may be held void and unenforcible, and a recovery thereon will be denied.53 In a similar suit brought in equity where the theatre owner had not fully performed under his contract, relief was denied him.54
tural defects see : St. Janies Hall Co. v. London Co. Council (Eng.) (1901), 2 K. B. 250.
53 Hart v. City Theatres Co. (1911), 71 Misc. (N. Y.) 427; 128 N. Y. Supp. 678; reversed 156 A. D. (N. Y.) 673; 141 N. Y. Supp. 386; judgment of Appellate Division reversed, and that of trial affirmed in 215 N. Y. 322; 109 N. E. 497. A contract between the owner of a theatre and the owner of an adjoining non-fireproof building to cut through the wall which separated the buildings, for an exit through the latter building, was held to violate the building code of the City of New York and the owner of the latter building was not permitted to maintain an action to recover the agreed compensation.
“Courts will not be astute to sustain contracts when the effect will be to weaken the efficacy of law and regulations designed for
the protection of human life. Where a contract on its face, whether so intended by the parties or not, offends against statutes intended to promote public safety, the courts will not enforce it” (excerpt from opinion in 215 N. Y. 322; 109 N. E. 497).
54 Keener v. Moslander (1911), 54 So. (Ala.) 881. Plaintiff owned a theatre and motion picture house in Mobile. Defendant conducted a candy business in the rear of the theatre — the parties contracted to give plaintiff a right of way through defendant’s storeroom into the theatre, after which plaintiff constructed improvements and made an entrance and vestibule through the storeroom. Defendant then erected a board fence, cutting off the entrance and egress of patrons and this suit for injunction was brought. Relief denied upon the ground that plaintiff had failed to perform