IN RE: the Contract between LOEW'S (1947)

Appellant employed respondent as a motion picture actress by an agreement in writing dated May 13, 1946, for a period of one year with six successive options to extend the term of employment for one year each. The terms of the contract of employment and of the options are identical, except as to time and salary, with those in the contract considered by us in In re Loew's Incorporated and Little. Cal.App., 179 P.2d 71. Appellant filed a petition for the approval of the contract pursuant to section 36 of the Civil Code, reciting that respondent was approximately 14 years of age. After notice to respondent and her parents a hearing was had and the court made an order approving and confirming the contract ‘as to the term provided for in paragraph 23 of said contract (the original or current term thereof)’ and directing the minor and her parents to return and appear before the court for further order and instructions ‘when and if the option provided for in subdivision (a) of paragraph 23 of said contract is exercised.’ The option referred to is for a period of one year from and after the expiration of the original term of employment.

Appellant has appealed from the order insofar as it confines and limits the court's approval of the contract to the term provided for in paragraph 23 thereof (meaning the period of actual employment for one year and not the periods covered by the options) and insofar as it fails to approve the contract in its entirety and without limitation or restriction as to time or term.

The questions involved in this proceeding are all discussed and decided in our opinions this day filed in Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc. v. Brodel, Cal.App. 179 P.2d 57, and In re Loew's Incorporated and Little, Cal.App., 179 P.2d 71.

Order affirmed.

WILSON, Justice.

MOORE, P. J., and McCOMB, J., concur.