Youngclaus v. Omaha Film Board of Trade
Decision Date | 02 July 1932 |
Docket Number | No. 364.,364. |
Citation | 60 F.2d 538 |
Parties | YOUNGCLAUS v. OMAHA FILM BOARD OF TRADE et al. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Panama Canal Zone |
Kirkpatrick, Good & Dougherty, of York, Neb., and Moyer & Moyer, of Madison, Neb., for plantiff.
Arthur F. Mullen, Sr., and Arthur F. Mullen, Jr., both of Omaha, Neb., and Bruce Bromley and George Shea, both of New York City, for defendants.
In this suit the plaintiff seeks to enjoin the defendant from enforcing a plan of operation, which he alleges is in violation of the anti-trust laws of the United States. The plaintiff is engaged in business as an exhibitor of moving pictures in Madison, Neb. At Norfolk, Neb., less than fifteen miles away, is a rival moving picture exhibitor. Norfolk is a city having a population of over 9,000 and less than 12,500. The defendant distributors and others entered into an agreement among themselves not to license the use of a picture by the plaintiff for a period of time (not exceeding ten days) after the picture had been displayed by the rival theater at Norfolk.
It has been the custom of distributors of moving pictures to place in contracts licensing the use of such pictures by exhibitors a provision that the licensee is to have the right to exhibit the picture a certain number of days before it may be exhibited in other theaters in the same territory, although such other theaters may have licenses to exhibit the same picture, and to place in the license contracts of such other theaters a provision that the picture must not be exhibited until the end of this so-called protection period.
The agreement of which the plaintiff complains is as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ring v. Spina, 230.
...282 U.S. 30, 51 S.Ct. 42, 75 L.Ed. 145; Fox Film Corp. v. Muller, 296 U.S. 207, 56 S.Ct. 183, 80 L.Ed. 158; Youngclaus v. Omaha Film Board of Trade, D.C. Neb., 60 F.2d 538, 540. The agreement also forbids outright sale of radio, television, and other subsidiary rights in the play prior to i......
-
United States v. Paramount Pictures
...7 Cir., 150 F.2d 877, affirmed 326 U.S. ___, 66 S.Ct. 574; Goldman Theatre v. Loew's Inc., 3 Cir., 150 F.2d 738; Youngclaus v. Omaha Film Board of Trade, D.C.Neb., 60 F.2d 538. The only way competition may be introduced into the present system of fixed prices, clearances, and runs is to req......
-
Mid-West Theatres Co. v. Co-Operative Theatres
...S. Ct. 951, 58 L.Ed. 1490, L.R.A.1915A, 788; Local 167 v. United States, 291 U.S. 293, 54 S.Ct. 396, 78 L.Ed. 804; Youngclaus v. Omaha Film Board of Trade, D.C., 60 F.2d 538. This court maintains that there is a distinction between using your power to make a legal contract and using your po......
-
Westway Theatre v. Twentieth Century-Fox F. Corp.
...a result of combination or conspiracy of numerous distributors or exhibitors or both, they have been held invalid. Youngclaus v. Omaha Film Board of Trade, D. C., 60 F.2d 538. See also First Nat. Pictures, Inc. v. Robison, 9 Cir., 72 F.2d 37; Vitagraph, Inc. v. Perelman, 3 Cir., 95 F.2d 142......