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.

262 THE LAW OF MOTION PICTURES ruptcy Act, and may not avail itself of the provisions of that Act.94 These decisions follow the principle laid down in the case In re Oriental Society,9'3 where it was held 94 In re Imperial Film Exchange (1912), 198 Fed. (C. C. A.) 80. “It seems too clear for argument that a corporation which leases moving picture films is not engaged in trading as above defined.” The petition alleged: “That the said Imperial Film Exchange, for the greater portion of six months preceding the date of the filing of this petition, lias been engaged in the business of selling and leasing moving pictures, films, machines and accessories for the exhibition of moving pictures, and has its principal place of business at No. 44 West Twenty-Eighth Street, borough of Manhattan, City of New York.” The court said: “Assuming that the business of selling moving picture films, machines, and accessories is within the act, the difficulty is that it is not alleged that the principal business of the corporation was such selling. It was not enough to allege that a part of the business of the corporation was within the statute. . . . Taking the pe tition as it stands, there is nothing to negative what appears to have been the fact that the principal business of the corporation was leasing picture films, although occasional sales were made.” 95 In re Oriental Society (1900), 104 Fed. (D. C.) 975. “A corporation engaged in giving theatrical performances is, of course, not engaged in manufacturing, printing or publishing. In my opinion, also, it is clearly not trading, or following mercantile pursuits, in the ordinary meaning of these words. A trader or merchant is one who either sells, or buys and sells, and a theatrical society does neither. It gives performances of one kind or another, to which the public are attracted by the skill of the performers. But the skill is not sold; it is merely exhibited for hire. The fact that the society must buy scenery and stage appliances and furniture, which it may afterwards sell again, is of no importance. This is a mere incident, and not the principal business of the bankrupt.”