Fox Film Corp. v. Springer
| Citation | 8 N.E.2d 23,273 N.Y. 434 |
| Parties | FOX FILM CORPORATION v. SPRINGER et al. |
| Decision Date | 20 April 1937 |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Action by the Fox Film Corporation against Jack W. Springer and another, individuals doing business under the firm name and style of Springer & Cocalis, and others. From a judgment of the Appellate Division (248 App.Div. 720, 290 N.Y.S. 133), affirming a judgment of the Trial Term dismissing the complaint, the plaintiff appeals.
Reversed, and new trial granted. Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First department.
Louis Nizer and Robert S. Benjamin, both of New York City, for appellant.
William D. Whitney, Bruce Bromley, and Albert R. Connelly, all of New York City, and John H. Morse, of Brooklyn, for respondents.
The plaintiff corporation is engaged in business as a distributor of motion pictures. The defendants operate a circuit or chain of theaters. In 1934 the plaintiff entered into a written contract with the defendants whereby, among other things, the defendants agreed to display 58 films released by the plaintiff for distribution and to pay for each picture a fixed license fee. In addition, the contract provided: The plaintiff has brought an action to recover moneys alleged to be due from the defendants upon two pictures ‘allocated’ by the plaintiff, pursuant to this clause of the contract. The complaint has been dismissed on the ground that the contract requires ‘accountings upon six pictures as one group,’ and, consequently, no recovery can be had in this action, based upon failure to pay ‘overage’ on separate pictures.
The plaintiff admits that the fixed license fee on each picture, denominated in the complaint as the ‘minimum guaranteed license fee,’ has been paid. The defendants do not dispute that they have paid to the plaintiff no part of the profits or of the ‘overage’ derived from the display of any of the pictures ‘allocated’ by the plaintiff. The controversy between the parties is upon the narrow question of whether ‘overage’ is to be calculated upon all six pictures as a group so that the amount due can be determined only by an accounting, upon which losses sustained in the display of one picture might be offset against profits derived from display of another, or whether the plaintiff is entitled to a share of the profits derived from the display of each picture as soon as the display of that picture is completed.
The contract between the parties consists, physically, of a printed form of the plaintiff company and typewritten clauses, in part inserted in the printed form and in part attached thereto. We have quoted in full the clause upon which the plaintiff's claim is based. Though the parties disagree as to whether under that clause ‘overage’ is payable upon each separate picture or upon the six pictures regarded as a group, they agree that the clause means that the defendants must pay to the plaintiff the excess of one-half of the gross receipts derived...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Lennox Metal Manufacturing Co.
...Its commink from diraction. We have four diractions: de naut, de sot, de heast, and de vast." 27 3 Corbin, 84-86. 28 Fox Film v. Springer, 273 N.Y. 434, 8 N.E.2d 23; Mencher v. Weiss, 306 N.Y. 1, 5, 114 N.E.2d 29 Marks v. Higgins, 2 Cir., 213 F.2d 884, 887; 52 Col.L.Rev. (1952) 125. 30 See,......
-
Bedrock Foundations, Inc. v. Geo. H. Brewster & Son, Inc.
...intention of the parties. See 3 Williston, Contracts § 614 (Rev.Ed.1936); 3 Corbin, Contracts § 555 (1951); Fox Film Corp. v. Springer, 273 N.Y. 434, 8 N.E.2d 23 (Ct.App.1937); cf. United States v. Lennox Metal Manufacturing Co., 225 F.2d 302 (2 Cir. 1955). And in view of the uncertain mean......
-
Law Debenture Trust Co. of Ny. v. Maverick Tube Corp.
...where necessary to understand the context in which the parties have used terms that are specialized. See, e.g., Fox Film Corp. v. Springer, 273 N.Y. 434, 8 N.E.2d 23 (1937). When the parties have used contract terms which are "in common use in a business or art" and have "a definite meaning......
-
Black Diamond Commercial Fin., L.L.C. v. Murray Energy Corp. (In re Murray Energy Holdings Co.)
...as generally understood in [the finance] business, in the light of the customs and practices of the business." Fox Film Corp. v. Springer , 273 N.Y. 434, 8 N.E.2d 23, 24 (1937). It would be error for this Court to dismiss the adversary proceeding based on a finding that the Specified Auctio......