Jesse L. Laskey Feature Play Co. v. William Fox Vaudeville Co.
New York Supreme Court
Motion for judgment.
1Opinion of the CourtHotchkiss, J.
Defendants demur to the complaint, and plaintiff moves for judgment. Briefly the facts are that plaintiff is a producer of motion picture plays. One Suratt is a popular actress of unusual and unique skill who, before contracting with plaintiff, had never posed for motion pictures. The privilege to be the first to exploit such an actress in motion pictures lends an additional value to the contract. In October, 1914, Suratt contracted with plaintiff for her services in a proposed motion picture play to be staged and produced by plaintiff, such services to cover a period of about four weeks,…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Rice v. . ManleyNew York Court of Appeals · 1876
- Reynolds v. . EverettNew York Court of Appeals · 1894
- Rogers v. EvartsNew York Supreme Court · 1891
- De Jong v. B. G. Behrman Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1911
- Reynolds v. EverettNew York Supreme Court · 1893
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Northern Wisconsin Co-operative Tobacco Pool v. BekkedalWisconsin Supreme Court · 1924
- Gonzales v. Kentucky Derby Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1921
- Colonna v. StateAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1928