Interstate Films Co. v. Wilson Amusement Co.

Bond, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appeal in this case is from the issue of an injunction to restrain, exhibition of another moving picture play in sup ¹⁵ posed conflict with exclusive rights vested in the complainant by the contract stated and considered in the case last decided, between the Kernan Company and The Wilson Amusement Company, owners of the Auditorium and Bivoli Theatres, respectively, in Baltimore City. In this instance the producer and the distributors appeared as additional defendants, and the injunction was issued after answers and demurrers had been filed by all defendants, with affidavits and other exhibits. The case differs from the preceding one also in that there is now no question of lack of notice to the Keruan Company of the claim of prior, exclusive rights in the owner of the Bivoli Theatre.

The latter company, on April 5th, 1930, mailed a letter to every other theatre in Baltimore giving notice of its claim and a warning against making a contract with the producer or distributor for any play not previously rejected by the owner of the Bivoli Theatre. The play concerned in this case is one named “The King of Jazz,” and the answer avers that it was one produced at much more than ordinary expense, almost $1,700,000. It is not listed in the contract, and would come only within the contract provision-regarding additional plays. It was offered to the complainant before the full film had been received in this part of the country, at special terms or prices, in excess-of any stated for plays listed in the original contract, and mueh’moro elaborate, in their details, but, according to the-answers, in conformity with prices demanded and received from theatres in other cities for this particular play.

In reply to the offer, the complainant demanded an opportunity to screen the film before deciding whether to accept or reject it. This w'as impossible in the time allowed, and a compromise on exhibition of sample sections of the film was rejected by the complainant. At this stage in the negotiations the producer and