Legal Opinion
Columbia Pictures Corp. v. Bi-Metallic Inv. Co.
District Court, D. Colorado
Decided August 8, 1930No. 9198PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SYMES, District Judge.
On demurrer to the complaint.
Passing the formal allegations of the complaint, it appears that plaintiff is a producer of photoplays, and distributes and licenses *874the same for exhihition to theater operators throughout the United States. Its business is denominated as that of “distributor.” Defendant is the owner of and operates a theater in Denver, and exhibits photoplays., On the 8th of December, 1928, the defendant agreed in writing with the plaintiff to take 29 “first-run” photoplays, or movie pictures, under license of the plaintiff, and exhibit and pay for the same…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1902
- A. B. Small Co. v. Lamborn & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1925
- Radich v. HutchinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- United States Fire Escape Counterbalance Co. v. Joseph Halsted Co.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1912
- United States v. Paramount Famous Lasky CorporationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1929
3Cited by5 opinions
- Glass v. HoblitzelleCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1935
- Momand v. Universal Film Exchange, Inc.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1947
- Vitagraph, Inc. v. GrobaskiDistrict Court, W.D. Michigan · 1931
- Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Distributing Corp. v. CockeCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1933
- Fox Film Corp. v. C. & M. Amusement Co.District Court, S.D. Ohio · 1932