Pike v. Parallel Film Distributors, Inc.

443 P.2d 804, 74 Wash. 2d 218, 1968 Wash. LEXIS 752
CourtWashington Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 25, 1968
DocketNo. 39292
StatusPublished

This text of 443 P.2d 804 (Pike v. Parallel Film Distributors, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Washington Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Pike v. Parallel Film Distributors, Inc., 443 P.2d 804, 74 Wash. 2d 218, 1968 Wash. LEXIS 752 (Wash. 1968).

Opinion

Hale, J.

The motion picture industry has not, as yet, shown much of an inclination to locate in Washington. Although the town of Blaine has long been noted for the beautiful Peace Arch, which there joins Canada and the United States in good will and harmony, Hollywood and its movie makers seem to have ignored the town. Undoubtedly, millions of persons have gone through customs at Blaine without one of them so much as suspecting that here was a place in which to create a Hollywood of the North Pacific country. Not so with Mr. George R. Borden, proprietor of the Sea Vue movie theater there.

[219]*219Mr. Borden envisioned the Blaine area as a good place for the building of a motion picture industry, and some of his friends caught the vision. He professed a professional knowledge of movie making and personal acquaintance with stars and producers. He was wont to mention a Mr. Sterling Hayden, a well-known film actor, who, as the owner of an island in the San Juans, would undoubtedly look with favor on the idea. There is nothing in the record, however, to show that Mr. Hayden ever participated in the idea—even remotely.

Borden mentioned to his friends his business connections with Parallel Film Distributors, Inc., a California corporation soon to be organized, and his friends helped him organize Parallel 49, Inc., a Washington corporation, which would make movies and employ film stars, directors, producers, and, in general, give competing film companies something to worry about. With his friends, he also organized a corporation named Parallel City, Inc., which was to build near Blaine a veritable city for the movie industry that would provide a place for movie stars and executives to dwell. Borden had no intention of slighting the people of Canada, so to enable them to share in his scheme he incorporated Parallel 49, Ltd., a Canadian company. Parallel 49, Ltd., would, like its counterpart Parallel City, Inc., in the United States, provide a film city in Canada where motion picture stars and executives would come and go and be seen in places of public entertainment.

Parallel City, on the Washington side, was to be designed in the architecture of the 1890’s so that it could be used both for movie and television settings and earn rental income from television producers. Night clubs and cabarets, to be frequented by movie stars, would be set up there, and the public would flock in, spending its money freely while hobnobbing with movie stars, directors, and film tycoons.

But along with these enterprises and as a part of it, the immediate project was to launch—that is, promote the sale of—some motion pictures already produced. It was the sharing with Howard Pike of an opportunity to launch the [220]*220motion picture Badjao that led to this action. Howard Pike had grown up in Blaine where his father had served as a federal customs appraiser for 31 years. Pike graduated from Blaine High School and attended Western Washington State College for 2 years at Bellingham nearby. He served in the Army in World War II and upon his discharge went to work at Boeing Airplane Company in Seattle.

In October, 1961, Howard Pike attended a reunion of his high school graduating class at Blaine and stayed the night in the home of one of his old high school classmates, Kenneth West, a Blaine barber and later defendant in this case. During that Saturday evening after the reunion when the conversation shifted to the subject of investments, Mr. West disclosed to his old classmate that he had put some money in a certain enterprise headed by George Borden called Parallel Film Distributors, Inc., of California, a business connected in some way with the motion picture industry. He told his old friend, Pike, that both he and his brother, Ray West, had each invested $10,000 and Pike, who had never made any business investments of any kind before, said he had money he could invest. Kenneth West suggested that they talk to his brother Ray about it the very next morning, Sunday.

Next morning, Pike and his host, Kenneth West, and Ray West met briefly at Ray’s house. Ray West said that he and his mother had invested $10,000 in what they called a motion picture launching. The Wests then promptly, by telephone, arranged to meet Borden immediately at his Sea Vue Theater office that same Sunday morning.

What transpired at the Sea Vue office was, of course, subject to conflicting and disputed testimony, but apparently the jury accepted in large part plaintiff’s version of it. Kenneth West, Borden, and plaintiff Pike were the only ones present. Borden described his close acquaintance with several movie stars and producers and the ways in which several corporations would function to build a motion picture industry in the Blaine area. Plaintiff knew Borden from earlier years as owner of the Sea Vue Theater in [221]*221Blaine, but had no knowledge whatever of film making and distribution.

The initial investment opportunity available to Pike would consist of a chance to launch a motion picture. Borden then described to him what was meant by launching a motion picture. Launching, said Pike in narrating to the jury what Borden had told him that morning, meant

bringing the news media, or the news reporters for the trade publications of the theaters, they have luncheons and stuff when they get together .... Launching . . . is the actual getting started of the distribution of a motion picture.

As part of the launching Pike said he was told the film companies made ad mats and a theater brochure and short 3-minute movies advertising the picture as a coming attraction, showing actual scenes from the movie being launched. The launching, as plaintiff described it further, consisted of preparation of advertising materials, good will promotion, luncheons for members of the press and, in general, a program to whet the public’s interest in the film. According to Borden, testified Pike, the first income from the movie would go to the party putting up the launching fund; after full reimbursement, he would thereafter share in the film’s profits and in all likelihood would make a lot of money.

During the conversation concerning the film industry in general and the financial opportunities it presented to the wise investor, it was pointed out to Mr. Pike that an immediate and direct way of participating was to put up $10,000 immediately for launching a motion picture called Badjao. Pike said Borden told him that Badjao, a picture made in and concerning the Philippines was ready for launching; that it could be launched for $10,000; and that the profits from the launching could, as had already happened to several prominent persons who had launched other pictures, make him rich.

Out of the film’s gross income, said Borden, according to Pike’s testimony, would first come the $10,000 advanced by the individual who undertook the launching. After reimbursement of the launching fund from the first earnings, [222]*222he would share thereafter in all of the profits as long as the picture was shown anywhere.

Pike, in testifying as to Borden’s explanation of a launching, also described the Parallel City enterprise:

He said that Parallel City— Q. All right, wait a minute now. Will you tell us what he said about Parallel City as far as his interest in it or your possibility of investment in it, or just what was said? A. He said Parallel City is a city in the daytime, will be used to produce motion pictures in.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Holland Furnace Co. v. Korth
262 P.2d 772 (Washington Supreme Court, 1953)
Boonstra v. Stevens-Norton, Inc.
393 P.2d 287 (Washington Supreme Court, 1964)
Farrell v. Score
411 P.2d 146 (Washington Supreme Court, 1966)
Accurate Products, Inc. v. Snow
408 P.2d 1 (Washington Supreme Court, 1965)
Webster v. L. Romano Engineering Corp.
34 P.2d 428 (Washington Supreme Court, 1934)
Kietz v. Gold Point Mines, Inc.
105 P.2d 71 (Washington Supreme Court, 1940)
Williamson v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America
120 P.2d 833 (Washington Supreme Court, 1942)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
443 P.2d 804, 74 Wash. 2d 218, 1968 Wash. LEXIS 752, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pike-v-parallel-film-distributors-inc-wash-1968.