Alcazar Amusement Co. v. Mudd & Colley Amusement Co.
Decision Date | 30 June 1920 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 22 |
Citation | 204 Ala. 509,86 So. 209 |
Parties | ALCAZAR AMUSEMENT CO. et al. v. MUDD & COLLEY AMUSEMENT CO. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Hugh A. Locke, Judge.
Bill for injunction by the Mudd & Colley Amusement Company against the Alcazar Amusement Company and others. From a decree refusing to dissolve the temporary injunction, respondents appeal. Affirmed.
W.T White, of Birmingham, for appellants.
Black Altman & Harris, of Birmingham, for appellee.
Under the averments of the amended bill and the attached contract (in two writings executed in the same connection), the Select Pictures Corporation invested the amusement company (complainant appellee) with the license or privilege of exhibiting exclusively and as "first run" the films within the contemplation of the contract. If the allegations in the bill otherwise in this respect were ignored, and if the contract included The Isle of Conquest, the averments are sufficient to ingraft upon as a part of the contract an established usage of trade significance, that justified the complainant's allegation that the contract invested it with the exclusive license or privilege of exhibiting the film as a "first run" for the six days prescribed in the instrument. German Ins. Co. v. Commercial Ins Co., 95 Ala. 469, 474, 11 So. 117, 16 L.R.A. 291; 4 Michie's Dig.Ala.Rep. p. 608 et seq., noting earlier decisions of this court; 17 C.J. p. 492 et seq. In order to constitute time the essence of a contract, it must be expressly so made, or that intent must necessarily follow from the circumstances disclosed by the particular engagement. Fulenwider v. Rowan, 136 Ala. 287, 309, 34 So. 975. The writing designated Exhibit B in the pleading provided:
The writing (advanced payment contract) designated Exhibit A in the pleading provided:
While a period of time, viz., during the year commencing on or about the 1st day of September, 1918, was mentioned in the contract, the writings do not expressly stipulate that time was or should be of the essence of the engagement. It appears very clearly that the paramount intent of the parties was that eight films, starring Norma Talmadge, should be furnished (subject to other stipulations) for exhibition by appellee in Birmingham, six of which had been so furnished by the Select Pictures Corporation at the time (August 16, 1919) that corporation communicated to the appellee its purpose to terminate the contract. Unless excepted by the considerations to be stated, the film called The Isle of Conquest was one of the eight films of the Norma Talmadge series that the Select Pictures Corporation engaged to furnish for exhibition by the appellee; time, one year, not being of the essence of the contract and not operating to define a period beyond which the delivery of the eight films of the Norma Talmadge series should not be effected by the Select Pictures Corporation under the license or privilege assured the appellee by the two writings, Exhibits A and B to the amended bill.
The fourth section of Exhibit A, so far as presently necessary, reads:
"Either party hereto may, by notice by registered mail given to the other, limit said contracts to two additional photoplays of each series respectively, and upon the delivery for exhibition of said additional photoplays said contracts will terminate with the same effect as if said photoplays were the last of the series respectively deliverable thereunder."
There is nothing in the record to indicate that this stipulation of the contract was availed of by either party. On the other hand, the letter to be presently quoted in part excludes the idea that the stipulation just reproduced was invoked by the Select Pictures Corporation.
Section 8 of Exhibit B provided:
In their letter of August 16, 1919, to the appellee (exhibitor), the Select Pictures Corporation wrote:
"Exercising the right vested in us by virtue of paragraph 8 in contract No. A-2006, made on the 26th day of July, 1918, entered into between Select Pictures Corporation, a corporation,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
National Licorice Co v. National Labor Relations Board
...F. & W. Ry. Co., C.C., 49 F. 412; Howe v. Howe & Owen Ball Bearing Co., 8 Cir., 154 F. 820, 828; Alcazar Amusement Co. v. Mudd & Colley Amusement Co., 204 Ala. 509, 86 So. 209; E. L. Husting Co. v. Coca-Cola Co., 194 Wis. 311, 216 N.W. 833; Nokol Co. v. Becker, 318 Mo. 292, 300 S.W. Here th......
-
Kelly v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.
...an express or of an implied negative covenant, the remedy at law was clearly inadequate. See, e. g., Alcazar Amusement Co. v. Mudd & Colley Amusement Co., 204 Ala. 509, 86 So. 209 (1920); Fleckenstein Bros. Co. v. Fleckenstein, 66 N. J. Eq. 252, 57 A. 1025 (1904); Booth & Co. v. Seibold, 37......
-
Gross v. Lowder Realty Better Homes and Gardens
...vel non, as well as go to the amount of damages. 163 Ala. at 352, 50 So. at 1010. The Court in Alcazar Amusement Co. v. Mudd & Colley Amusement Co., 204 Ala. 509, 86 So. 209 (1920), perpetuated the prospective broad application of the cause of action as alluded to in Kelly, supra. The Alcaz......
-
Boyette v. Preston Motors Corporation
... ... 1013, 6 Ann.Cas. 317; Interstate ... Amusement Co. v. Albert, 239 U.S. 560, 36 Sup.Ct. 168, ... 60 L.Ed ... Empire ... Theater, 204 Ala. 566, 86 So. 880, and Alcazar Am ... Co. v. Mudd & Colley Am. Co., 204 Ala. 509, 86 So ... ...