If you look at the comment on June 14, 2005, it is mentioned that the Park may have been demolished for apartments. The current view on Google shows no building like the Park but does show a very large apartment building at that address. Any local confirmation would be helpful.
This is the website for the current occupant. My suggestion would be community center for the function. The building is still standing, although much of the ornamentation in the 1930 photo is gone. http://www.journeyhouse.org/index.php
March 23, 1917, plaintiff had judgment against defendants by confession for $3,759.72 and costs. The defense set up in the affidavit is that defendants on February 13, 1917, operated the Rosewood theatre as a moving picture house; that when they purchased the theatre it was supplied with a pipe-organ orchestra of plaintiff’s manufacture; that it did not give satisfaction and that plaintiff represented that it could not be made to give satisfaction because of its location in the theatre; that thereupon the plaintiff sold to the defendants one pipe-organ orchestra, style “V,” for $5,500, and warranted that it would give satisfaction; that $1,510 was paid on account of the purchase price at the time and the balance of the purchase price was the note in judgment; that the organ did not give satisfaction in that it failed to keep in tune; that the various pipes and stops were so constructed as to create sounds which were displeasing to all who heard them; that defendants notified plaintiff of the defects, which it attempted to correct, but failed in doing so; that by reason of such defects the organ was of no value to defendants, who notified plaintiff to remove it, which plaintiff refused to do, whereupon defendants removed it and placed it in storage for plaintiff’s account, sending the warehouse receipt therefor to it; that a consideration for said $3,900 note on which judgment had been confessed had wholly failed. A chattel mortgage was given upon the organ to secure the note, and it appears that after the organ was stored plaintiff sold it under the chattel mortgage and that it brought $1,044. On a trial before court and jury there was a verdict and judgment in defendants' favor, and plaintiff brings the record here by this appeal for review.
There was an abundance of evidence from which the jury might properly find that the style “V” organ which defendants bought of plaintiff for their moving picture theatre was wholly unsatisfactory for the purpose for which it was purchased and entirely worthless to defendants in their moving picture business in which it was to be used, and that plaintiff knew the purpose for which the organ was to be used and, so knowing, installed it in defendants' Rosewood theatre.
We find no error in the instructions or in the rulings of the trial judge upon the admission or exclusion of testimony. The record being free from reversible error, the judgment of the municipal court is affirmed.
If you ever wondered how “Bank Night” worked in the 1930s, this case should answer your questions.
The Iris Amusement Corporation filed its amended complaint for injunction in the superior court of Cook county, seeking to restrain the mayor and commissioner of police of the city of Chicago from interfering with its conducting a gift enterprise known as “Bank Night.” Afterwards, the Balaban & Katz corporation and several other theatre owners intervened as co-plaintiffs.
In operating Bank Night, thousands of persons outside of the theatre in the surrounding neighborhood of the theatre registered their names in certain books kept for this purpose. Each name registered in the books was given a number. Patrons attending the theatre from time to time are also permitted to register their names in said book kept for the same purpose, which patrons who have so registered are also given a number. Any one desiring to register in said books may do so without paying admission or giving any consideration of any kind therefor. Duplicates of the numbers appearing in said registration book are placed on a small ticket approximately an inch square and all of said numbers contained on said tickets are placed in a small container. All persons whose names are so registered in said registration book, whether said registration was obtained outside of the theatre or in the theatre are notified that on certain days during the performance at a certain hour one of the tickets in said receptacle will be drawn out by some person chosen from the audience of the theatre and that the person whose name is registered in the book having the number corresponding to the number on the ticket so drawn would be given a substantial cash prize by the theatre operator, varying in amounts, and the winner of said cash prize or Bank Night need not be a patron of said theatre. The winner is announced to the audience of said theatre and is also announced to all persons standing outside said theatre. Any person standing outside of said theatre whose number has been called as a winner of said Bank Night is admitted into the theatre without any admission price or cost to him and is given the cash prize. At no time does any person whose name is registered in the book, whether registered outside of the theatre or inside of the theatre, pay any consideration for having his name so registered in said registration book.
Quite contrary to plaintiff’s argument, the element of price is present. As the Massachusetts court said, we may look at this thing realistically and sensibly. We know that those within the theatre pay for any chance anyone outside may have to win. Furthermore, we know that the chance of an outdoor participant is decidedly limited by the requirement that he reach the stage in a short time. We know that if any appreciable number of outside persons are to participate in the drawing they must loiter on the street, obstructing normal traffic, and that they must crowd the lobby and theatre exits to the danger of those within. The price for a fair and reasonable chance to win is the cost of a ticket of admission to the theatre, which is the object of the plan, and thus a lottery is completed, even under plaintiffs' own definition and contention.
Our public policy against lotteries expressed in two constitutions, in the Criminal Code, and in the ordinance before us, is much too firmly rooted to be evaded by any chimerical device. Our conclusion is that the operation of the scheme outlined in the amended complaint constitutes a lottery and that the plaintiffs have no standing in a court of equity for its furtherance or protection.
The superior court correctly dismissed the complaint for want of equity, and its decree will be affirmed.
Scroll down to the Lincoln Theater section on this site. They posted my CT photos from 2007, also linked to my photobucket account. I’m famous. http://tinyurl.com/cvfgob
It reminds me of the Royal in South Philadelphia, or the Imperial in Inglewood, CA. Both sat empty and rotting for years, although the Royal has been saved. The Imperial was razed for a strip mall.
That’s what I think. I just can’t turn the 1948 photos into this place, even with the rebuilding. Not sure if the original addition was for the 1948 place and then the mention of performing arts was added after the first post on 4/29/05. I can see the history being theater and then hardware store.
I’m having a little trouble reconciling the 1948 exterior photo posted on 7/9/07 with the current photos of the building. I’m hoping that we’re not mixing up the Opera House with another stand alone theater called the Smyrna.
If you look at the comment on June 14, 2005, it is mentioned that the Park may have been demolished for apartments. The current view on Google shows no building like the Park but does show a very large apartment building at that address. Any local confirmation would be helpful.
Here is a 1980 photo:
http://tinyurl.com/dk2uqz
Here is a view of the concession stand in 1960:
http://tinyurl.com/cctqm8
Here is a 1980 photo:
http://tinyurl.com/dgoju7
This is the website for the current occupant. My suggestion would be community center for the function. The building is still standing, although much of the ornamentation in the 1930 photo is gone.
http://www.journeyhouse.org/index.php
Organ failure in 1921:
March 23, 1917, plaintiff had judgment against defendants by confession for $3,759.72 and costs. The defense set up in the affidavit is that defendants on February 13, 1917, operated the Rosewood theatre as a moving picture house; that when they purchased the theatre it was supplied with a pipe-organ orchestra of plaintiff’s manufacture; that it did not give satisfaction and that plaintiff represented that it could not be made to give satisfaction because of its location in the theatre; that thereupon the plaintiff sold to the defendants one pipe-organ orchestra, style “V,” for $5,500, and warranted that it would give satisfaction; that $1,510 was paid on account of the purchase price at the time and the balance of the purchase price was the note in judgment; that the organ did not give satisfaction in that it failed to keep in tune; that the various pipes and stops were so constructed as to create sounds which were displeasing to all who heard them; that defendants notified plaintiff of the defects, which it attempted to correct, but failed in doing so; that by reason of such defects the organ was of no value to defendants, who notified plaintiff to remove it, which plaintiff refused to do, whereupon defendants removed it and placed it in storage for plaintiff’s account, sending the warehouse receipt therefor to it; that a consideration for said $3,900 note on which judgment had been confessed had wholly failed. A chattel mortgage was given upon the organ to secure the note, and it appears that after the organ was stored plaintiff sold it under the chattel mortgage and that it brought $1,044. On a trial before court and jury there was a verdict and judgment in defendants' favor, and plaintiff brings the record here by this appeal for review.
There was an abundance of evidence from which the jury might properly find that the style “V” organ which defendants bought of plaintiff for their moving picture theatre was wholly unsatisfactory for the purpose for which it was purchased and entirely worthless to defendants in their moving picture business in which it was to be used, and that plaintiff knew the purpose for which the organ was to be used and, so knowing, installed it in defendants' Rosewood theatre.
We find no error in the instructions or in the rulings of the trial judge upon the admission or exclusion of testimony. The record being free from reversible error, the judgment of the municipal court is affirmed.
If you ever wondered how “Bank Night” worked in the 1930s, this case should answer your questions.
The Iris Amusement Corporation filed its amended complaint for injunction in the superior court of Cook county, seeking to restrain the mayor and commissioner of police of the city of Chicago from interfering with its conducting a gift enterprise known as “Bank Night.” Afterwards, the Balaban & Katz corporation and several other theatre owners intervened as co-plaintiffs.
In operating Bank Night, thousands of persons outside of the theatre in the surrounding neighborhood of the theatre registered their names in certain books kept for this purpose. Each name registered in the books was given a number. Patrons attending the theatre from time to time are also permitted to register their names in said book kept for the same purpose, which patrons who have so registered are also given a number. Any one desiring to register in said books may do so without paying admission or giving any consideration of any kind therefor. Duplicates of the numbers appearing in said registration book are placed on a small ticket approximately an inch square and all of said numbers contained on said tickets are placed in a small container. All persons whose names are so registered in said registration book, whether said registration was obtained outside of the theatre or in the theatre are notified that on certain days during the performance at a certain hour one of the tickets in said receptacle will be drawn out by some person chosen from the audience of the theatre and that the person whose name is registered in the book having the number corresponding to the number on the ticket so drawn would be given a substantial cash prize by the theatre operator, varying in amounts, and the winner of said cash prize or Bank Night need not be a patron of said theatre. The winner is announced to the audience of said theatre and is also announced to all persons standing outside said theatre. Any person standing outside of said theatre whose number has been called as a winner of said Bank Night is admitted into the theatre without any admission price or cost to him and is given the cash prize. At no time does any person whose name is registered in the book, whether registered outside of the theatre or inside of the theatre, pay any consideration for having his name so registered in said registration book.
Quite contrary to plaintiff’s argument, the element of price is present. As the Massachusetts court said, we may look at this thing realistically and sensibly. We know that those within the theatre pay for any chance anyone outside may have to win. Furthermore, we know that the chance of an outdoor participant is decidedly limited by the requirement that he reach the stage in a short time. We know that if any appreciable number of outside persons are to participate in the drawing they must loiter on the street, obstructing normal traffic, and that they must crowd the lobby and theatre exits to the danger of those within. The price for a fair and reasonable chance to win is the cost of a ticket of admission to the theatre, which is the object of the plan, and thus a lottery is completed, even under plaintiffs' own definition and contention.
Our public policy against lotteries expressed in two constitutions, in the Criminal Code, and in the ordinance before us, is much too firmly rooted to be evaded by any chimerical device. Our conclusion is that the operation of the scheme outlined in the amended complaint constitutes a lottery and that the plaintiffs have no standing in a court of equity for its furtherance or protection.
The superior court correctly dismissed the complaint for want of equity, and its decree will be affirmed.
Here are photos from 1979 and 1983:
http://tinyurl.com/c9zdeb
http://tinyurl.com/d387c2
Scroll down to the Lincoln Theater section on this site. They posted my CT photos from 2007, also linked to my photobucket account. I’m famous.
http://tinyurl.com/cvfgob
They almost spelled it right.
It reminds me of the Royal in South Philadelphia, or the Imperial in Inglewood, CA. Both sat empty and rotting for years, although the Royal has been saved. The Imperial was razed for a strip mall.
Here are some April 2009 photos. The last is of the adjacent multiplex, which is not listed on CT.
http://tinyurl.com/dcodad
http://tinyurl.com/cf43jw
http://tinyurl.com/dhotld
http://tinyurl.com/cjy4b6
http://tinyurl.com/czwa58
http://tinyurl.com/cwbknj
http://tinyurl.com/cp4l7g
http://tinyurl.com/dhtf38
Here is a 1983 photo:
http://tinyurl.com/c6thg5
So it is. Thanks.
Here are two 1983 photos:
http://tinyurl.com/c6thg5
http://tinyurl.com/cbpudq
Two 1986 photos here:
http://tinyurl.com/d6bvbd
http://tinyurl.com/cqqwg5
Here is a 1967 photo:
http://tinyurl.com/dfoygg
That’s what I think. I just can’t turn the 1948 photos into this place, even with the rebuilding. Not sure if the original addition was for the 1948 place and then the mention of performing arts was added after the first post on 4/29/05. I can see the history being theater and then hardware store.
So it’s a facsimile of the old building.
Don’t know if this is the theater referred to in the above post.
http://tinyurl.com/cp5ltp
Unless like they said, they tore down all the old parts and then much later rebuilt everything to look like the opera house. Still odd, though.
Here is a 1982 photo:
http://tinyurl.com/c2csn8
They do look like two different buildings, though.
Last comment on this: I guess from reading the history they tore it down after the fire in 1948 and rebuilt it later. Question answered.
I’m having a little trouble reconciling the 1948 exterior photo posted on 7/9/07 with the current photos of the building. I’m hoping that we’re not mixing up the Opera House with another stand alone theater called the Smyrna.
Here is another photo of the Smyrna Opera House:
http://tinyurl.com/cy282s