Warner v. Marchetti

California Court of Appeal May 21, 1942 No. Civ. 13552Published

Before: York

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a contract between a licensed theatrical agent and a talent scout to split commissions for introduced talent is enforceable and not in violation of the Labor Code, as the scout acted as an independent contractor rather than a partner or associate in the agency.

Issues

Whether a contract to split commissions between a licensed theatrical agent and a talent scout is void for failure to comply with Labor Code regulations regarding agency profit-sharing.
Whether the evidence supports the trial court's findings regarding the existence and terms of the commission-sharing agreement.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“equity will not permit appellant to take advantage of his own wrong by the claim that he operated his agency in an unlawful manner and thus avoid the payment of a commission the retention of which would amount to an unjust enrichment.”

“There is nothing in the record herein which would substantiate the claim that respondent was financially interested as a partner, associate or profit sharer in the operation of appellant’s business.”

YORK, P. J.

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiff, a so-called talent scout for the moving picture industry, for the sum of $767.66, being 50 per cent of commissions received by defendant, a licensed theatrical employment agent, for services rendered by the latter as agent for Susanna Poster, a moving picture actress, said judgment providing procedure for an accounting of future commissions received by said defendant as agent for said actress.

The complaint alleges and it was found by the court, among other things, as follows:

“III. That shortly after April 22, 1938, plaintiff and defendant entered into a contract whereby defendant agreed to pay plaintiff one-half of all commissions at any time received by defendant resulting from his presentation and placing of stage, screen and radio personalities located by plaintiff and introduced by her to defendant.

“IV. That thereafter and on or about May 23, 1938, plaintiff located a prospective screen personality, one Suzanne Larson, now known professionally as Susanna Poster, and

[174]

on or about June 4, 1938, introduced said Susanna Foster to defendant.

“V. That on or about June 6, 1938, defendant signed an employment agency contract with said Susanna Foster and her mother Adelaide F. Larson, for an agent’s commission of ten (10%) per cent of the earnings of said Susanna Foster, which contract was also signed by her father, L. L. Larson, a few days thereafter. That defendant at all times thereafter acted and is still acting as employment agent for said Susanna Foster.

“VI. That thereafter on or about the month of May, 1939, while defendant was her agent, said Susanna Foster obtained employment as a motion picture actress, and has ever since been and is now so employed under contract, with Paramount Pictures, Inc.; and defendant has ever since been and is now receiving commissions as employment agent for said Susanna Foster at the rate of ten (10%) per cent of the professional earnings of said Susanna Foster.”

It is here maintained that the findings and judgment are (a) against the law, and (b) against the evidence.

Warner v. Marchetti

AI Brief

YORK, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief