Viewing page 44 of 86

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

to be based on whatever net figure she wished to receive for each work, plus a 33-1/3% selling commission to the gallery. The plaintiff's understanding and agreement is evidenced by a list of prices in her own handwriting captioned "April, Boston Exhibition at the Stuart Gallery" -- annexed hereto and marked Exhibit "A". 

I respectfully point out to the Court the column entitled "Net". The figures appearing in this column were the figures which the plaintiff desired to receive for each painting. It is uncontradicted, nor can it be disputed, that these figures represented the sums to which plaintiff was entitled, and upon receipt of this sum by the defendant, the defendant was to be discharged from any and all liability. 

After the unfortunate fire on March 4th, 1948, the defendant corporation contacted the insurance company. The insurance company agreed to pay the amount which the plaintiff would have received for such painting upon a sale thereof (i.e., the net figure fixed by the plaintiff). The defendant contended, however, that it had also suffered a loss, not only by reason of the commissions it might have received upon a sale of the destroyed paintings, but the sums which the defendant had been obligated to expend for storage, publicity and other items. After considerable dispute, numerous conferences and communications, the insurance company, through its attorneys, agreed to pay the said commissions to the defendant, but that this payment was to set no future precedent. In fact, the insurance company required the defendant to sign a letter conceding that the payment of such commissions was without prejudice to any future claims along such line. Annexed hereto and marked Exhibits "B" and "C" are copies of a letter received from the attorneys for the insurance company dated June 2nd, 1948, and the document which I was compelled to sign on behalf of Jacques Seligmann & Co., Inc. 

-2-