Spitzer

Spitzer v. Pathe Exchange, Inc.

Good Law
132 Cal. App. 612·1933 Cal. App. LEXIS 336·23 P.2d 308
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 16, 1933Docket No. 8995.California2,705 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Sturtevant, J.

The plaintiffs commenced an action against the defendant to obtain relief for the nonperformance of a contract. The defendant answered and the trial was had before the trial court sitting without a jury. The court made findings in favor of the plaintiffs and from the judgment based thereon the defendant has appealed.

In the early part of the year 1925, N. H. Spitzer, one of the plaintiffs, entered into a contract with the defendant under the terms of which the plaintiffs agreed to make several motion pictures. The defendant agreed to pay on the acceptance of each picture a certain sum of money and thereafter to distribute the picture through its sales channels and out of the proceeds to pay certain additional sums to the plaintiff N. H. Spitzer. The main office of the defendant was located in New York. The studio and laboratories of the plaintiff N. H. Spitzer were located in Los Angeles County. Soon after the contract was executed the plaintiff Spitzer came from New York to Los Angeles and entered upon the performance of the contract. The first picture he undertook was one entitled “Heirloons”. To create a picture the plaintiff N. H. Spitzer was compelled to employ many…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.