*1 -64 n in fact Scott Was boys the truck.
n onhis Bessemer, or was way Elliott’s his personal mission on some again he
n own? York New by the As observed re-entry supra, Riley case, master’s of the servant attitude 'by mental is not affected attitude servant, must be but “there connection coupled a reasonable which he work space time and persu'aded engaged.” We should extremes two case within falls excerpt from
mentioned in the court, jury of the Connecticut
n question presented. with the is not in conflict conclusion This defendant, among authorities noted 553; 1298; 35 p. them: Am.Jur. C.J. Co., N.Y. Oil Riley Standard 1382; Chandler v. 97, A.L.R. N.E. Pent Owens, Massey, 201 Ala.
icost v. considered. we have free from is one
True the case that a the view difficulty, entertain but we no presented
jury question was in the refusal intervened
error
charges indicated. be af- should judgment results the
It ordered. is so
firmed.
Affirmed. LIVINGSTON,
BROWN, SIMP-
SON, JJ., concur. McBee, Busby, Earl Ewing, L. D. C. John Cook, Phillips, M.
Harold
Jerome
Birmingham,
petitioners.
Wilkinson,
C.
Birmingham,
Horace
certiorari
to review the
decree of the Circuit Court of Jefferson
Equity,
County,
adjudging
guilty
obey
refusing
civil
final
mandate of the
decree entered on
September,
27th
Greenwood et als.
of Arthur
Hotel
Restaurant
Interna-
*2
65
edy
judicial
Interna-
provided
Bar
is not
and
Tenders
tional Alliance
als.,
No.
13,
1940,
tribunals.”
129.
America
of
Title
League
tional
of
et
Code
§
1940,
court;
1038,
7,
provides
a return
And
Title
69398
circuit
Code of
in said
injunctions may
proceedings
be granted
returnable
record
embodying the
duly
has
certified
circuit
courts
this state
court
the circuit
argued by
court,
judges
was
supreme
The case
by
register.
made
1947, on mo- of
19,
appeals
judges
circuit
March
and submitted
courts
upon
jurisdiction.
motion entered
of like
merits. The
courts
tion and
petition-
with notice to
the motion docket
before
The record
shows that
us
als.,
Arthur Greenwood
by
ers
made
was
jurisdiction
by
duly
court’s
was
invoked
petition for cer-
to dismiss or strike
complaint
by
bill of
filed
Arthur Green-
proceedings on
dismiss the
tiorari and
als.,
complainants,
wood et
in the Cir-
complete
ground
County,
Equity,
cuit Court
In
of Jefferson
by appeal.
remedy
adequate
Em-
The Plotel
Restaurant
ployees International Alliance and Bar
is the
merit.
without
is
motion
This
America,
International
law Tenders
common
Alabama
law in
settled
unincorporated
a voluntary
organiza-
remedy
judg-
labor
to review
certiorari
is
tion,
Union Local
persons guilty of
holding
ment or decree
459
of the Hotel & Restaurant
imprisoned,
not
contempt, who are
International Alliance
In-
remedy.
Bar Tenders
corpus
imprisoned, habeas
is
if
League of
ternational
an unin-
Association, 242
Bar
Bessemer
Wetzel
corporated
organization,
labor
Hack
722;
Dickens,
parte
Ex
164,
Ala.
5 So.2d
George Hardwick,
conformity
er
218;
v. Lake
272,
Bankston
So.
162 Ala.
50
Equity
with Alabama
2. Code of
819;
Rule
508,
parte
122
Ex
man,
So.
Ala.
219
1940,
Appendix, p.
Title 7
1037. And
501,
531;
parte
Ex
Hill,
§§
158 So.
Ala.
229
7,
1940, pro
and 144 of
143
Title
Code
Ala. 303.
motion to
Hardy,
The
John
viding
process,
notice to
is,
service
therefore,
proceeding
over
dismiss the
binding upon
the individuals consti-
ruled.
tuting
organization
or association.
common
writ of cer-
law
Review
Brotherhood,
Grand International
etc. v.
question
jurisdic-
is limited to
tiorari
Couch,
611,
173;
236 Ala.
C.J.S.
enter the decree which
court to
tion
Associations,
1.§
disregarded
allegedly violated
proceedings
bill
upon
apparent
If
the record.
for errors
1946,
alleges
September,
that on the 4th of
support
trial
there
evidence
presented
the individual defendants
to the
which the
fact
court’s conclusion
negotiation
Greenwoods a contract
as to
such conclusion
predicated,
wages,
working
hours and
conditions
Wetzel,
parte
Ex
subject
review.
employees
written
Hacker and
Slaugh
parte
Ex
8 So.2d
Ala.
part-
his
formed
Greenwood that he and
Marshall,
116 So.
ter,
Fire
position
engage in
were not
ners
time to
negotiations until
consid-
injunc
irregularities
Procedural
legal advice in
er the contract and obtain
errors
tion
proceedings
regarded
left
respect
That
thereto.
the contract
Wetzel,
apparent.
parte
supra; Roch
Ex
individual
with the Greenwoods and said
Rochelle,
elle
away
on Fri-
went
but returned
major
day,
September
contention is that there
answer
Petitioners’
6th of
for an
jurisdiction
was an
in the cir-
absence of
Greenwoods
when the
informed
Septem-
cuit court
render the
counsel
had been unable to consult
27th, 1946,
is, therefore,
contract,
ber
respect
void.
Greenwood was
Hacker
could wait
informed
By
Chapter
Article
Subdivision
no
longer and the
was called
through
embracing
Title
§§
up.
line set
1940, equity jurisdiction
Code
is con-
contract,
upon
proposed
alia,
ferred
circuit court
in all civil
inter
con-
plain
“in which a
adequate
following provisions:
causes
rem-
tained the
operated
County by
above
Em-
Shop:
Type
I.
“Article
Jefferson
Employer.
em-
in his
named
retain
agrees
hire
ployer
men-
herein
ploy no other
“It
expressly
between
understood
good standing in the
*3
tioned but members
parties that
the above establishments
should
through the office
to
Union and
hire
during the
sold
as
concession
be
leased
24-
have
Union shall
Union. The
terms
agreement,
then
life
re-
limit
in which
furnish
hour
must con-
agreement
conditions of this
and
employees.
quested
If
Union is
be in
as to
establish-
tinue to
full force
request-
employees
position
to furnish the
heirs,
thereby
exe-
upon the
ment and is
Employer
time,
ed
then the
shall
*
within
*
assigns.
and
cutors
open mar-
right
from the
to hire
the.
alleges:
bill
“The
further
said
ket,
however,
employees
provided,
that the
at
George
said
Hardwick
Hacker and the
objectionable
so
shall not be
to the
hired
wait;
they
time
couldn’t
stated
employees
Union,
so
and that
shall
hired
enough
Complainants had had time
membership
with-
perfect
in the Union
their
place
thereupon
complainants’
and
left the
being hired. All
DAYS after
FIFTEEN
about 11:45 a. m. thereafter
business and
probation
employees so hired shall
for
be
acting
Union,
International
and
the.Local
days
employment
the first fifteen
said
through the
Carl Hacker and the
said
subject
and
to dismissal without cause.
Hardwick,
do
George
duly authorized so to
strike,
Employees:
II.
“Article
Interviews of
organizations,
called a
said
representative
official
of the Union
Complainants
employees
and
sta-
property
Em-
have access to
shall
pickets at the front and
en-
rear
tioned
ployer
regular
during the
business hours
Complainants’ place
business.
trances of
purpose
talking
employees
for the
with
pickets varied
number from
Said
two
duty concerning
Union business.”
Carl Hacker and
and included
said
ten
pickets
the said
Hardwick. Said
Dressing Rooms,
XIII.
“Article
Lock-
placards
approximately
large
displayed
ers,
provide
Employer shall
Toilets: The
printed
square on
three feet
which
employees sanitary
his
toilets
dress-
for
and
is on
Em-
‘Greenwood’s
Strike.
words
rooms,
ing
individual
for
and an
locker
Wages
ployees demand more
less
employee
key
with a lock and
it.
each
pickets congregated around
Hours.’ Said
Employer
financially responsi-
be
shall
Complainants’
rear of
the front and
said
through
incurred
his
losses
ble
failure
displayed
pla-
place
of business
said
part
latter
para-
with the
comply
up
walked
and down the side-
cards
supplied.]
graph.
[Italics
the main
of Com-
walk
front
entrance
Fines:
XIV.
There shall be no
“Article
plainants’ place
up
of business and
any purpose
employer
nor shall
fines
Complainants’
alley entrance to
down the
breakage
charges for
unless
be
there
place
people
and informed
business
part
gross neglect on the
through willfull or
referred to called a strike
Unions above
employee.
of an
were
prospective
who
and that
customers
would
place
to enter the
about
of business
agree-
This
Agreement:
“Duration
they
if
cros-
disreputable
down and
be low
understanding
an
between
ment constitutes
they
inter-
greatly
sed
line
-
lo-
the Greenwood Cafe
operating
transaction of
ferred
business
City
Street, in
20th
at 407 North
cated
Complain-
impossible for the
have made it
Alabama,
Birmingham,
long
ants to transact
the Hotel
Local 454 of
Union
picket line maintained.
Alli-
Employees International
Restaurant
fil-
“Complainants
prior
-aver
International
and Bartenders
ance
calling
since
of said
ing of this bill and
with the American
affiliated
they
Respondents
informed the
duly
strike,
as the
authorized
of Labor
Federation
.that
ready,
always
are now
employees
they
now
qualified agent
negotiate with the Re-
and able to
may
willing
be em-
employed, or who
hereafter
respect to a
relat-
contract
spondents with
ployed
address or
above
at
working
hours
condi-
ing
wages,
which
in the future
establishment
Mfg.
Complainants
Cruse,
al.,
66, 66 So.
189 Ala.
tions of the
Co.
with 657:
agree
were unable
if
Respondents
condi-
terms and
have,
English
“The
courts
and American
contract,
ready,
tions
believe,
exception,
we
without
held
willing
able and would submit their
right
business,
conduct
without
one’s
arbitration,
differences
wrongful
injurious
interference
quested
off
Respondents
call
others,
property
valuable
Complain-
negotiate
with the
and to
protected,
necessary,
will be
by the in-
if
relating wages,
a contract
hours
ants for
junctive processes
equity.”
and working
conditions
assurance
pages
page
So. at
*4
if
between the
could
differences
itAnd
cannot be denied that the owner of
amicably adjusted
Complainants
not be
such
in re-
right
business had
to contract
agree
would
such
to
differences to
submit
spect thereto without intimidation or coer-
as
arbitration and enter
such contract
cion.
by
was determined
arbitration
be fair
to
principle
recently
This
has
reaf-
just.
and re-
refused
by
firmed
court
this
the “White Ele-
jected
strike
and stated that the
said offer
phant”
Knapp-Motor Co.,
case. Carter v.
pickets
would
be continued and
main-
600,
383,
11
384,
243 Ala.
144
So.2d
A.L.R.
Complainants signed
tained until the
con-
1177,
observed,
quot-
it
wherein
after
was
”*
* *
supplied.]
tract.
[Italics
ing the
substance
the bill’s averments:
“
clearly
“The
bill thus
defend-
* * *
discloses
Complainants are
And
ad-
only,
by
ants are actuated
motive
one
counsel,
by
informed and
vised
believe and
is,
coercing complainant,
under
who was
advice,
information and
belief aver
obligation
so,
legal nor moral
do
neither
to
calling
give
to
another
car.
Hudson
pickets
maintenance
was a wanton
“Our
decisions are to
effect
rights
malicious
invasion of
right to conduct one’s business without
Complainants
Complainants and that
wrongful interference of
valua-
others is a
puni-
compensatory
entitled to recover
”
* * *
right
property
protected,
ble
which will be
Respondents.
damages of the
tive
by
necessary,
injunctive process.
if
Bowen
supplied.]
[Italics
Morris,
689, 123
So. 222. And
v.
bill,
filing,
presented
after its
to
enjoyment
good
of the
good
name and
Evans,
Richard
one of
Judges
V.
Hon.
will of a business
likewise a valuable
Court,
granted
of the Circuit
who
fiat and
subject
right
property
protection.
to like
register
issue
to
directed the
Sloss,
&
Bankers’ Fire Marine Ins. Co. v.
complainant
upon
filing a bond “in
26, 155
Ala.
employ-
229
371. One’s
prescribed by
form
manner and
law and ment,
calling
property
trade
likewise a
approved
register.” The writ
by wrongful
right,
interference there-
duly
register
issued
junction
wrong.
with is
actionable
an
United States
the sheriff
the 7th
served
Fidelity
Guaranty
Millonas,
&
Co. v.
206
1946,
September,
on the named defendants.
147,
732,
.on
primarily
repression
directed
tem-
on the
mandate
accordance with its
right
urge it that
preserving
porary injunction.
v. Col
protections
given.”
Thomas
clearly presents a sub-
the case
“Since
315, 326,
lins,
516, 537,
U.S.
65 S.Ct.
323
right
free discussion
stantial claim of the
89 L.Ed.
indicated,
since,
frequently
we have
jealous
guarded
recog-
“Accordingly,
here
decision
has
242, 258,
eye,
Lowry, 301 U.S.
Herndon v.
persuade
employers’ attempts to
nized that
732, 739,
1066; Schneider
L.Ed.
57 S.Ct.
81
or not
respect
joining
to action
State,
60
S.Ct.
U.S.
Amend-
joining
the First
unions are within
Carolene
84 L.Ed.
States v.
United
Rela
Labor
guaranty.
ment’s
National
note,
Co.,
Products
304 U.S.
Virginia Electric
Power
Board v.
tions
note,
would
L.Ed.
S.Ct.
Co.,
L.Ed.
314 U.S.
*5
dispose
improper
be
of the case other-
to
done
Decisions of other courts have
348.
decree,
the
face of
which
wise than
the
persuasion
other
to
When
likewise.
judgment
the
now under
We
review.
bring about coer-
things
added
are
which
upon
not called
are therefore
to consider cion,
character,
limit
it that
the
or give
applicability
Meadowmoor Dairies
the
passed.
National
the
has been
Cf.
Union, supra
Wagon
v. Milk
Drivers’
Virginia
[371
Electric
Labor Relations
Board
308],
the circumstances
Ill.
N.E.2d
Co., supra. But
short
Power
quite
obviously present
which
a different
employer’s
im-
limit
cannot be
the
freedom
controlling allegations
situation from the
protects
paired. The Constitution
less
no
present
violence
libel made in
and
employees’
right.
course
converse
Of
bill.
espousal
of labor is
entitled
protection than
higher
no
constitutional
us, then,
to
“All
we have before
an
espousal
cause.
lawful
‘peaceful persuasion’
disentan-
instance
protection.”
to
same
is entitled
‘picket-
[Ital-
violence
free
gled from
from
Collins, supra,
Thomas v.
supplied.]
ics
masse or otherwise conducted’ so
ing en
535, 536,
pages
at
323 U.S.
aggravated
‘imminent and
to occasion
as
315, 326,
Alabama,
89 L.Ed.
danger.’ Thornhill v.
310 U.S.
736, 746,
ants suit were equitable proposed contempt proceeding reasonable not make the time to consider the * * character, C.J.S., Con 17 legal contract obtain advice 272; thereto, 62; spect tempt, C.J.S., Injunctions, right recognized ais § Co., Conkey B. 194 U.S. Collins, Bessette v. W. court in v. supra, Thomas con- L.Ed. clusive on limited writ of review are, opinion certiorari. therefore We proceeding A civil ordi- pro- in the hold bill protection narily not for of the equity and the ceeding was not without authority dignity but is for court’s jurisdiction circuit enter- court had complaining party. benefit Where tain it. alleged of the decree mandate protects pri- been violated establishes contempt pro- property rights, party injured vate rely ceeding ruling cite and on the proceeding allege and must initiate the Covington court in of Revenue of Board certainty to a common such intent Merrill, County Ala. violation and has suffered detriment that he denying equity of the bill proximate consequence such viola- That case. impose on com- allegations Such tion. contention is met utter- following plaining party sustaining burden ances Merrill case. of the allegations by convincing evi- clear “A of the bill filed examination careful 272 and C.J.S., Injunctions, dence. §§ December, 4th complainant therein discloses contempt proceeding The civil not a seeking action review part original proceeding Covington county by board of revenue supplemental thereto for the enforce injunction, resort .to and to restrain protection property rights ment and statutory board the exercise from complainant. parte Dickens, Ex powers building discretion 218; Harper’s Balkum courthouse, specific without aver- newa Adm’r., Bankston v. Lake fraud, that amounted to cor- ment of facts *7 man, parte Ex ruption, and dealing unfair collusion on Miller, Am. of revenue or the part the board the St.Rep. 49. * * In that thereof case members rights private property were not involved proceeding instant case was as here. by petition complain- filed initiated injunction in against ants two proceeding We now for consider therein, contempt Hack- named contempt. proceeding “A Hardwick, Roy George er against and generis, action’ being neither a 'civil sui Copeland, Doe” Roe” prosecution’ “Richard nor ‘criminal within “John alleges individuals Fur- that whose ordinary meaning of those terms. “the petitioners” ther, names are unknown formula will is said there is no fixed that contempt techni- substituted when After proceedings, and ascertained. that injunction up They setting in substance of accuracy required. are cal * * * proceedings, injunction summary scope It general in nature. adopt decree 'of final court rendered has said that court September 27, 1946, scope of procedure provided the contemner that own * * decree, out, process charged *. heretofore set of law said is accorded due contempt generally said Carl Hacker and proceeding A special mandatory injunc- proceeding, Hardwick violated the original garded as an “they to, of, tion in said cause in independent No. 69398 collateral arises, each failed or refused contempt although have to cancel and in which the. annul call off the authority in conflict with there is some called Greenwood Cafe the 6th has been said that statement. September, punishment fact same; complainants the diction “7. Your aver in court render Roy circum- Hardwick, Hacker, George of and said Carl said decree violative guaran- Copeland, Roe, and privileges vents immunities Doe and Richard John unknown teed to Amendment individuals names are the 14th whose States, the petitioners, wilfully violated each Constitution the United rights freedom violating prohibitory speech, now wilfully of freedom of law; cause, process of assembly heretofore issued lawful and due them, policy public each after notice violative and circumvents the injunction, expressed issuance of said while the United States effect, 29 U.S. same inwas Act of force Fair Labor Standards seq., the Norris-LaGuardia C.A. § picketed attempted picket “(a) Clayton Act, seq., the 101 et U.S.C.A. § at 407 Greenwood Cafe North 20th Street Act, others, well as the Stat. in Birmingham, Alabama. Constitution, statutes, court decisions “(b) picketing or Aided or abetted the public policy of Alabama. State attempted picketing of Cafe the Greenwood By leave of North 20th Street in Birmingham, at 407 petition filed substituted November Alabama. 6, 1946, which named in lieu “John Sought disrupt opera- “(c) the normal Roe,” George Setliffe, Doe and Richard tion of the walking Greenwood Cafe Allen, Thorpe, L. Emerson W. O. S. John back and in front of forth the main en- Burch, Flowers, Waller, M. E. A. F. H. J. pla- trance of the Greenwood Cafe awith Hichter, Brackett, F. E. C. A. Ralston card on their back and chest with the Simpson, and R. L. charging more printed following large words thereon constituting elaboration the acts the viola type: ‘This House does not employ Union tion embodied just Labor.’ or individuals the said named final decree the court charging aided and abetted others whose names parties said named had or knowl notice your petitioners doing are unknown to edge, committed said things charged this subparagraph. prohibitory knowing injunc acts that said “8. Your par- aver that the tion was force and effect and violated charged pre- ties herein with the conduct prohibitory and committed sub-paragraphs' (a), (b) and(c) scribed in contempts by more civil one or above, servants, agents Picketing “(a) or attempting n .of Restaurant Hotel the Greenwood Cafe at 407 North 20th In- International Alliance Bartenders *8 Birmingham, Alabama; in Street 'America, League ternational or said Culinary Union Local or “(b) Maintaining Workers attempting or to main- said or said Hard- George pickets Carl Hacker tain in front of or near wick.” Cafe Greenwood 207 North Located at Alabama; in Birmingham, 20th Street prayed for
Petitioner the arrest of the engaged picket- those in “(c) named and Seeking disrupt or attempting to ing required they operation and that show normal of Greenwood Cafe why they punished con- should not be 20th Birmingham, Street in North tempt. petition by Alabama, was sworn to walking back and forth in facts to the effect front main “the entrance Cafe to said foregoing 12, 1946, set out in the bill are true on large October number of correct.” continuously times and almost for several date, placard wearing of said hours or alleged contemners, Cope- other than placards printed large which was in land, demurrers, appeared filed two type following ‘This words: House answer, quash filed motions to and one filed Employ Does Not Union Labor.’ points taking the Circuit Court County, Equity, in charge was without “Petitioners further aver and Jefferson jurisdiction decree; paragraph to render said final in the defendants named servants, void for juris- agents decree was want of were the or 12, 1946, In- in violation of said October the Hotel & Restaurant prohibitory injunction. In- ternational Alliance and Bartenders or of the ternational lose “12. Petitioners were caused Local No. said Union put large money sum of 45, or Carl Hacker or of the of the said in- great annoyance trouble, expense, they the time said Hardwick at expense counsel including convenience complained sub- of in committed the acts fees, consequence of the proximate as a paragraphs -(c) above. (a), (b) and injunction.” aforesaid violations said “10. before the Petitioners aver verified the Green- petition was filing petition up while the said facts effect that set woods Sep- prohibitory decree of correct. foregoing bill are true and effect, tember was in full force and and Hardwick The answer of Hacker preceding named in defendants knowledge admits that had prohibitory knowing paragraph that said junction final decree denies effect, in full force and injunction was injunc- mandatory had “violated prohibitory injunction and violated said tion issued said cause No. 69398 by conspiring committed a civil respect They speci- manner whatsoever. Cafe at North picket the Greenwood fically and state that aver Alabama, Birmingham, 20th Street cancel refused to and annul failed and pur- following overt act committing strike, called call off the viz : back conspiracy, walking to said suant Sep- 6th Greenwood Cafe on the main entrance in front of the forth contrary, tember, the said 1946. To 12, 1946, large October said Cafe on immediately notified all of Hacker Carl continuously and almost of times number employees and members of striking during hours hours for several Union Local Culinary Workers the, placard placards wearing a date said rendered had been the words: ‘This printed which were premises picketing enjoining Employ Union Labor.’ Not Does House mandatory injunction that a ordering cancelling, annuling charge rendered aver and Petitioners “11. calling the said petition off of strike and and while filing before request striking said Iiacker did em- injunction in the decree prohibitory ployees members the said Local full September force picket signs and to take off Union to in paragraph named effect," picketing the desist from said cease and knowing prohibitory above, said Cafe, conformity effect, Greenwood in full force injunction was Hacker, request the said Carl twenty- prohibitory said violated employees and members striking said de- times and each five or more immediately Union take said Local did twenty-five or more committed fendants picket signs and de- off their cease and contempts walking back separate civil Cafe, said Carl picketing sist main entrance in front and forth request striking further .said did Hacker on October Cafe *9 employees Local members of said during twenty-five more times or following meeting the Union to attend wearing placard said date hours on of said meeting place regular in the printed large placards which was on or reading purpose of said Union for the Does Not type words: ‘This House striking employees injunction the said Labor,’ said after each of Employ Union Union, of said said and members prohibitory said had notice of employees members of striking by them done which was injunction, all of did meet the said Union conspiracy Union entered into said pursuant Sunday following place prohibitory meeting aforesaid violate injunction Saturday said late attempting to issuance or picketing injunction the said Carl evening, meeting said and at at 407 North Cafe notify further advise Alabama, did Birmingham, Hacker 20th Street employees striking alleged members said by any per- to have been committed son or persons alleged paragraph Local said strike had said Union that bill, premises of enjoined picketing petition said that or affidavit. Said respondents separately severally speci- had been the said Greenwood Cafe fically deny said enjoined persons did further read said servants, agents employees or striking employees and of said members Hotel Restaurant interlocutory International Al- Local the full writ Union upon the .liance Bartenders issued and served International of America or Hacker, Culinary said said and did so advise the Workers Union Local or striking employees Carl Hacker said and members said or George Hardwick, said respond- said Local he but said reading Union that ents do aver employees complained same to said act Union members inof paragraph said 7 was carry perform committed out and the order and any agent, employee servant or respect said decree the Court with to the in- International Union junction or said picketing of said Local Union and the manda- or the said Carl Hacker or George the said tory injunction requiring calling off * * * Hardwick. Whereupon spontaneous said strike. acclamation, when the said Carl Hacker original answer of Hacker and part got of said ordering Hardwick to original petition was strike, calling off said said adopted petition answer to the striking employees and Union members amended and subsequently filed. The in- they declared that would not return to work dividuals than Hacker and Hard- at the said Greenwood Cafe. Whereupon wick named in the petition substituted ob- the said Carl Hacker did state to said em- jected to filing petition ployees and Union members he was numerous sundry grounds, among entirely power compel without them to others, on ground they were not go back to work but that he was in reading parties respondent to the original bill. complying writ with the Said individuals named as contemners Respondent, George order of Court. other than Hacker Hardwick, Hardwick, authority had no to call said paragraph 8th allege answer that, authority likewise strike and had no parties deny “These each and all of the cancel, annul or call off strike. The said of paragraph averments bill, 8 of the employee said Hardwick was not an they state that are not and never have been of the Greenwood Cafe and had no author- servants, agents, employees or of the re- ity as member spondents named this paragraph, No. Union Local call either a strike they allege off being to call a strike. are wrongfully held this proceeding under a wickedly 7 and 8 paragraphs “6. For answer to false allegation agents, serv- bill, affidavit, petition said said ants, respondents, spondents severally separately deny purpose of bringing them within the paragraphs averments contained in said injunction.” terms of said They do petition bill, 7 and of said or affidavit. deny respondents Said are advised that certain members of the unin- persons of corporated members who are organizations labor and associ- Unions, Local are affiliated with the ations named proceedings. Labor, Federation of American and other Said offered no evidence but the case was submitted on the evidence persons affiliated who are with other local *10 appear no unions unions with at all did presence given ore tenus in the of the court signs upon said and wear in front of cafe petitioners adduced the in contempt the or about bodies. Said proceeding. abetted, they aided, any deny that or did The trial any court embodied in way other act in connected with or the decree petitioners having signs of the wearing holding guilty to the said of contempt, do any following “finding commission of of or in the the acts the of fact”: conspired Hardwick and convincing with Hacker and clear and "The evidence prohibitory violate Mr. and with each other to Hacker Court finds that 6, September feature of orders of strike not off the Mr. have called Hardwick 27, September to were commanded do. they as convincing effect clear to the likewise thoroughly satisfied Court also “The They do they effort to so. made no conspira- all of the and finds that some or are, therefore, of Court in tors, prohibitory feature violated mandatory failing comply to with the feaT and forth by walking back Court issued on of this ture the order in main to front entrance 6, 1946, September September Cafe, during all practically wearing pla- hours October on and con- likewise clear "The evidence is Not Em- reading ‘This House Does cards vincing finds that after the Court Labor,’ although Carl ploy Union September September decrees George not Hacker and Hardwick did 27, 1946, prohibiting were made entered they actually placards, wear were striking employees of picketing, the present when 'the other defendants wore were members Greenwood Cafe who_ placards encouraged and aided and those #454, Union Local placards to on oc- who wore injunction and knowledge full injunction. As casion violation of said Hacker Hard- under the direction of petitioners have result, sub- sustained wick, vicinity remain continued to They a loss stantial financial loss. suffered Cafe, placards. the Greenwood but without employ and were to of revenue caused 12, 1946, This continued until October when liability a reason- counsel and incur the employee-pickets supplanted these fee, to attorney’s caused and were able parties persons not large number Court for their business attend leave picketed who the Cafe writ of three practically as a result weeks date under direction of Carl on injunctions. taking In disobedience of George wearing Hardwick Hacker into consideration the these matters Court ‘This House Does Not placards reading any injury to will as good has excluded Employ Union Labor.’ Eleven those into consideration element taken brought arrested and individuals were be- damages the amount fixing ourt. Inasmuch have fore the main case. case, in this not fit take stand seen that coer- Court is “The has introduced no evidence should be ordered and that measures cive other, way or this Court point, one be sufficient to cause measures should except by a statement not informed George Hardwick Hacker and call whether or argument made obey mandatory off the fea- organiza- labor members they were 27, 1946, September ture of decree of Phillips, leading Mr. time. tion at that monied decree nature trial, defendants counsel Petitioners, fine, payable to sufficient Hardwick, Hacker defendants than the make the whole amount argument in substance in his stated obey and to be- as trade unionists ‘these defendants Sep- prohibitory of the decree features picket on this lieved 27, 1946, to, should tember above referred picketed who Other occasion.’ imposed upon all be the defendants 12th, not been identified have October required pay (that) should against. proceeded not been proceeding. costs thoroughly satisfied and Court “The case is evidence also clear “The persons participated who finds picket- convincing effect did so picketing on October accompanied ing on October Hacker and of Carl the instance of violence for which the defendants persons acts each Hardwick and that responsible does deem Court picketing with full in said participating punitive appropriate award dam- injunction, aforesaid knowledge óf
75 ages punishment proceed- cree that existence had of the or fix notice injunction scope purpose. the for ing acts of violence.” and its Angeles Superior v. Falloon Court Los complain- parties The decree awards County, Cal.App. 149, 79 1057. 248 P. $4,598.18 by the ant for occasioned loss contempt in this is on vio- case based in violat- wrongful acts of lation disregard of mandate a ing de- final embodied competent juris- final decree of a court of required cree said con- court and diction heaung after full and it is well proceeding to pay temners cost judicial that a judgment settled is a act support and there was evidence going accomplishes of a by which embodied in award the decree. scourt purpose judicial of its It is a creation. de- stated, previously Under the rules it was by claration which the settled issues are permissible par for court allow the rights parties liabilities complainant ties amend or file sub are as to the fixed matter for submitted pleading ruling stituted and this was free words, judgment decision. In 272; C.J.S., Injunctions, from error. 43 § judgment the end of the A law. Superior Yavapai County, Wall v. Court sentence of the law on the ultimate facts 624; 53 Ariz. 89 Lademan v. P.2d pleadings admitted and established Co., Mo.App., 297 S.W. Lamb Construction proof. a resolve or decree of 187; C.J.S., Contempt, 17 § the sentence the law- are pleadings, We pronounced by the court on the action or contempt, were subject basis for the it, question establishing legal before objection made thereto rights litigants. judgment Such uncertainty scope there was no in the right property constitutes vested injunction. party brings favor bf the prevailing parties who bill, '“Persons were to the right protection within the the law but not in the order 2; named be- C.J.S, Judgments, land. Bell § parti- were not shown to Otts, v. 46 Am.St. cipated in sought enjoined, acts to be 117; Rep. Cocke, Speed nevertheless bound notice of the integrity The sustention judg- punish- granting order and decrees of the ments courts provisions; for disobedience of able * * outpost of liberty last under United law. C.J.S., Injunctions, 263; *.” 43 In § States v. Mine United C.C, al., re Rice F. 217. U.S. L.Ed. 884 (See opinion Frankfurter). Officers, agents and members of volun Justice unincorporated tary controversy association labor authorized out of which entity sued to be as an must take notice of litigation provoked arose was not by the subject proceedings punish They Greenwoods. were not engaged in violating ment for an in unlawful They merely act. en- junction against such association. gaged operating issued their business which 263; C.J.S., Injunctions, American right do under the constitu- Steel Wire Co. Drawers’ Die v. Wire & tion and laws state and of the United Ohio, Makers’ Unions Nos. 1 and C.C. The controversy promoted States. 90 F. Lake Erie R. Co. & W. in behalf of labor. This Ind, Bailey, C.C. 61 F. and other cases. act, unlawful was not an so long as it was peaceful. the'request Nor was of -the The failure of the individual defendants Greenwoods for reasonable time con- Doe substituted and Richard “John legal sider effect of the contract pre- membership Roe” to disavow their sign procure sented them to legal unincorporated association made advice thereon unlawful or unreasonable as injunction proceeding as- their a matter of law. serted evidenced court, conduct and the statement of their counsel decree of the circuit after full trial in argument right,- sufficient hearing, holding this as determined to warrant conclusion stated in de- that the acts of the defendants
7G law- beyond their the record to entered junction proceeding what elements went show unlawful, rights into fine Under ful the amount of fixed. the interfering author- petitioners the limited down in the from laid strained such review complain- stated, posi- operation not in by the heretofore we with lawful ities are the ants, cafe, a business tion determine that what entered owners of apparent error effort the amount of fine an which had invested their far govern- on The decree in so capital. if we to have the record. are And contempt petitioners guilty law, court which holds ment of of that decree against and assesses taxes observed fine them established their must be should be affirmed. obeyed, long integrity not costs as its so nothing impeached. successfully There however, appears, imprisonment or of in the court decisions this period of for a of the contemners fixed examine court that we have been able to imprisonment time is excessive. The contrary. United States hold to the should be and continue until limited America, 330 United Mine Workers with the mandate of comply contemners 258, 67 884. U.S. S.Ct. L.Ed. power au “Without this the decree. compel respect offered on the trial of the thority Evidence was court to of the un- contempt show proceeding tending judgments in cases of character this action directed force and effect.” C. lawful concert and would be without Injunctions, J.S., Cafe owners thereof 276. § entered, to invoke was after the decree by As in a most recent case observed organized labor not the economic forces Supreme Court of the States: United strike, unions only involved of the imprisoned “And those who until territory where also generally order, 'carry obey keys of their recognized and ob- a rule conduct pockets.’ prison Nev in their own In re “picket who crossed the served that one itt, Cir., 461. Fine im F. undesirable, person, line”' was an dishonest employed prisonment then to vin opera- supplies the effect public interest but as coercive dicate cafe were of the tion compel the contemnor sanctions to to do large cut off made more measure it his duty what made law do. ” obtain, and conditions * acts * difficult * The Penfield Co. of California alleged brought about designedly & Exchange v. Securities al. Commis coerce Greenwoods in contemners to sion, U.S. rights to resist unioni- surrendering period a definite sentence for time the establish- their business and zation of The cause is quashed. remanded shop, only violated the ment of a closed petitioners order circuit but also violated mandate appear purge themselves 26, Code spirit of Title letter contempt. provides: which foregoing opinion deals with how- any person, unlawful questions presented “It shall argued record place or distant from ever near to by counsel on under submission taken state, hinder, employment in this jus- consideration court. The other with, prevent, use within or questions terfere tices which have not voted on force, threats, intimidation, stated, state of though been considered use, sabotage, obtaining, coercion some the members indicate some of the materials, ser- equipment or disposition propositions stated are sound and all operator of such employer justices agree appro- vice certiorari is an supplied.] employment.” place priate remedy holding to review the decree [Italics Cruse, 189 Hardie-Tynes Mfg. guilty Co. See proceedings motion dismiss the properly denied. to establish tending There was evidence majority, damages proximately flow- fol- the elements shows, dispose wrongful ques- the con- acts of lows case on a ing from the record, presented predicat- nothing the face of tion not there temners but
77
judicial
court,
course,
This
sub-
takes
ed
occurring
on an
since
incident
merits,
In' Hotel
notice of
own
&
records.
mission
on motion
case
this
Employees
Alli
which Restaurant
International
parties and on
suggested by
al.,
ance et
v.
et
al.
Arthur Greenwood
given
opportunity
an
have not been
injunctive
supra,
suit
en-
this
decided the
Nevertheless,
be heard.
the decree
injunction
was not
this
tered,
Greenwoods,
in the
sustained
judgment here
equal
improperly
The
injunction
issued.
case, have been denied
should be
protection
entered was to the effect the bill
process
and due
of the law
dissolved.
dismissed
under
law
the constitution
laws
States,
state
of the United
contempt pro
We think this civil
being
judgment
from
here concludes them
fall
ceeding must
decision
injury
made
done them. Con-
whole for the
original suit.
1901, 13.
stitution of
accepted
generally
rule
opin-
majority
cited
decisions
injunction proceed
that a defendant
in an
ion',
it,
I
on records
take
were rendered
may not be
ing
held liable as for
civil
right
wherein
the court
unlimited
contempt for
the violation of
terms
review,
right
not a limited
as here.
reviewed,
which
thereafter
majority opinion
overlooks the fact
dissolved,
A
or otherwise terminated.
num
rights
violated
which
ber
authorities
found cited in
to be
transgressed
not rest
the mandate
did
Exchange
note to Securities and
Com
decree,
property
arise
out
Okin, Cir.,
862,
2
mission v.
137 F.2d
148
rights
complainants’
1019,
A.L.R.
those
particularly
found on
ownership,
protection
incidents of
page
Among
1032 of
148 A.L.R.
those
ju-
had invoked the court’s
Searls,
14,
Worden
121
cited are
v.
U.S.
indemnify-
given
risdiction and have
bond
814,
Gompers
7 S.Ct.
From because defendant I re- My contempt for criminal spectfully dissent. as to disobedience conclusion appeal, an order set stat- later aside on proper judgment what the should be is plaintiff in the action may profit by way ed above. court in the 2d 696. ant inal ing a civil al. PER CURIAM. the trial injunctive considered contempt proceedings This contempt judge cause proceeding International styled al., and expressly so stated prove collateral to the Hotel & decided Ala. here as constitut- Alliance et rendered. Restaur involved by this orig [*] relief of the same order. The and criminal Searls, fine We [*] question of civil imposed falls with [*] ” might supra, contempt erroneously issued. Worden v. [814] which are here note in simultaneous 121 U.S. an distinction between a civil at. based further page is therein [14] upon pertinent. excerpts which events to remedial proceeding L.Ed. 853 pages fully violation from But dis- appropriate forego quotation Certiorari is the rem But we cussed. further edy Dickens, authority parte Ex review. citation of other from that point. cited in' They are found' cases A.L.R.
authority and the note
supra. question consider the settled
We well *14 as we the matter view authorities and contempt, recognized agreed civil as a must be a reversal of
the result here
judgment rendered and a dismissal
petition in the cause. be so filed It will
ordered. indicate, ruling authorities
As the regard civil does
here any proceeding way stand contempt and is prejudice without
criminal regard thereto. rendered.
Reversed and except BROWN,
All concur the Justices
J., who dissents. So.2d
CLECKLEY CLECKLEY. Div. 435. Prattville, Duncan, appel- Booth & lant.
Supreme of Alabama. Court 15, 1948.
Jan. Reyn- Reynolds Reynolds Omar L.
olds, Clanton, appellee.