Behannesey

Behannesey v. Paton

Good Law
1928 Cal. LEXIS 814·203 Cal. 444·264 P. 763
Supreme Court of CaliforniaFebruary 25, 1928Docket No. L.A. 9206.California2,167 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Seawell, J.

This appeal is taken from a judgment entered against appellant on account of its obligations arising from the production of a motion picture. Judgment by default went against H. C. Maynard and Stuart Patón Pictures Company of Los Angeles. The appeal is prosecuted alone by Cinema Finance Corporation.

Stuart Patón Pictures Company of Los Angeles was an association of individuals consisting of Stuart Patón, H. C. Maynard, and W. G. Taylor. Cinema Finance Corporation was incorporated under the laws of the state of Delaware, engaged, apparently, in the business of distributing motion pictures to the trade. Prior to the execution of any of the contracts herein mentioned, Stuart Patón Pictures Company had entered into a contract with the Associated Exhibitors, Inc., the terms of which are not important, by which said Stuart Patón Company agreed to manufacture and deliver said motion picture for distribution. This contract, how ever, was reckoned with by the Stuart Baton Pictures Company and Cinema Finance Corporation in the contract entered into by them on May 14, 1925, which contract is of paramount importance in determining the rights of the parties to this appeal. All of the parties…

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.