Wolff v. Alexander Film Co.
| Decision Date | 23 January 1933 |
| Docket Number | 4-2828 |
| Citation | 56 S.W.2d 424,186 Ark. 848 |
| Parties | WOLFF v. ALEXANDER FILM COMPANY |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Desha Circuit Court; T. G. Parham, Judge; affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
P. S Seamans, for appellant.
A. R Cooper, for appellee.
Appellee contracted in writing with appellant for the rent of "a series of advertising films for a continuous period of twelve months from the date the first film is shipped," to be screened in the Siegel Theatre of McGehee at a cost to appellant for screening of $ 10 per month. He also agreed to pay appellee for rent of the advertising films in installments of $ 15 per month, the first to be and was paid at the date of the contract, March 7, 1930; the second to be due and payable 30 days after the first shipment of service, and the others every 30 days thereafter, covering twelve months. The first shipment of film service was April 5, 1930, and the service was thereafter continued as per contract until said theatre was closed, about May 20, 1930. Thereafter, on July 30, 1930, the theatre was reopened by Mr. Baradel under the name of the Ritz Theatre. Shipments of film service was then continued to the Ritz Theatre, which screened the films under agreement between appellee and Baradel that a monthly charge of only $ 7.50 should be made to appellant. This new arrangement with the Ritz was brought to the attention of appellant by appellee, and he made no objection thereto. These shipments continued to September 20, 1930, when they were suspended by appellee because appellant had breached the contract by refusing to pay it the rental price of $ 15 per month. The contract provides that "the film company may, in case of delinquency in payments, suspend service until such payments are made." Upon appellant's refusal to proceed further under the contract, or to pay therefor, this suit was instituted for the recovery of $ 150, the balance due, appellant having paid the cash payment and one installment of $ 15. Trial before the court sitting as a jury resulted in a judgment for appellee for the amount sued for with interest.
For a reversal of the judgment, it is first urged that the closing of the Siegel Theatre terminated the contract, and that the evidence fails to show it was thereafter revived. We think appellant is wrong in both contentions, but, assuming without deciding that the closing of the Siegel Theatre did terminate the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Crystal Clear Computer Solutions, LLC v. City of Helena-West Helena
...that Crystal Clear condoned, and was willing to continue accepting, the City's routinely late payments.98 Wolff v. Alexander Film Co. , 186 Ark. 848, 56 S.W.2d 424, 424 (1933) (quoting Clear Creek Oil & Gas Co. v. Brunk , 160 Ark. 574, 255 S.W. 7 (1923) ).99 Robinson v. Cline , 255 Ark. 571......
-
Southern Pipe Coating, Inc. v. Spear & Wood Mfg. Co.
...Truemper v. Thane Lbr. Co., 154 Ark. 524, 242 S.W. 823; Grayling Lbr. Co. v. Hemingway, 128 Ark. 535, 194 S.W. 508; Wolff v. Alexander Film Co., 186 Ark. 848, 56 S.W.2d 424; and Clear Creek Oil Co. v. Brunk, 160 Ark. 574, 255 S.W. 7. In the last cited case, Chief Justice McCulloch used this......
-
Home Life Insurance Co. v. Wasson
... ... 991, 291 S.W ... 74; Laflin v. Brooks, 180 Ark. 1167, 22 ... S.W.2d 169; Wolff v. Alexander Film Co., ... 186 Ark. 848, 56 S.W.2d 424. It is not necessary, however, to ... do ... ...
-
Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Gilbert
...complain of an alleged erroneous action of the trial court if he himself has induced such action. In the case of Wolff v. Alexander Film Co., 186 Ark. 848, 56 S.W.2d 424, we said: "It is next urged that the court erred in rendering judgment for the full amount of rentals less payment, as th......