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.

240 THE LAW OF MOTION PICTURES to rent the lessor was to receive a stipulated portion of the profits, and pay certain charges and to share in the losses, the relation was that of partners or joint venturers, and not that of lessor and lessee. The lessee may sell out his interest in the theatre to a third party; and in such a contract a covenant by him not to engage in business in a limited territory for a limited term has been held valid and binding. And where, in violation of such covenant, he subsequently attempts to manage a theatre within the prohibited area during the prescribed term, he will be enjoined.58 However, injunction is not a remedy usually favored by the courts with respect to leases and their breaches, for to do so “would be to compel supervision by the courts for a long term of years and the enforcement of negative covenants which would in effect be to decree specific performance.” 59 Where the owner of the theatre had contracted first with one company, then with another company, for the venture. In an action brought by one of the partners an order appointing a receiver was reversed on the ground that plaintiff was not asking for a .dissolution, and that the proper parties had not been brought in. 68 Metropolitan Opera v. Hammerstein (1914), 162 A. D. (N. Y.) 691; 147 N. Y. Supp. 532. Defendant Oscar Hammerstein in 1914 sold his opera properties, good will and business to the Metropolitan Opera Co. He covenanted not to engage in grand opera in New York City for ten years. On injunction to restrain defendant from giving grand opera, held, that such a covenant was not in restraint of trade, and was reasonable. 69 Shubert v. Woodward (1909), 167 Fed. (C. C. A.) 47.