*1 332 presented, is clear that
In view of the situation it. petitioner prayed. has issue the writ should remedy by appeal or adequate speedy, plain, no Court, 169 Superior 176 Cal. Carter v. otherwise. Court, App. 667; Cal. P. Gadette v. Recorder’s 817. prayed. It ordered that the writ issue INTERNATIONAL OF THE JOHNSON THE BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS UNITED AMERICA, LOCAL UNION AND JOINERS OF 971, Et Al. No. No. 2969 P.(2d) 658.
December Appel- Donovan, & John Thatcher Woodburn : lants *2 Raffetto, Respondent: &
Frame
OPINION
By Court, C. J.: Coleman, case; opinion appeal in this is second
This liability appeal disposes question the former appearing (52 170), defendants 288. P. only appeal is, question and the involved on this appellants’ brief, argu- opening in the oral stated and on ment, damaged if “whether so to what extent.” opinion judge in filed a written this learned trial n fully disposes clearly think
case we hereby following involved, adopt the we question thereof, opinion of this portion portion of the court: as a by is settled this case
“The law of decision, and, under Supreme Court of State this judgment and decree of is entitled to rein- directing compelling defendants to court the Brotherhood as a member of state of Local No. 971. question this at determined Court
“The to be present that should time the amount wrongful plaintiff by act of reason of allowed I expelling him from the Union. the defendants congratulation right think- to all think it is a matter of ing me that men that is a union town. It seems to Reno laboring advantage men even with of the Union difficulty obtaining livelihood even have sufficient place like Reno. testimony accept the of the witnesses are to “If we Reno, average wages defendants, earned cent, town, ninety per be a union which is considered to Carpenters’ Union is $1200 year. testimony *3 plaintiff’s and the is to that is the that witnesses the effect amount $2000 plain- were able to earn and the amount that the tiff he claims have been to earned had would able have it not been for his from the Union. opinion the the made of Court that estimate
“It is by small, too the defendants is the witnesses for by opinion that the made Court is also of the estimate large. According his witnesses is too and working days are the evidence there year rules, dealing under union and are we with proposition wholly that At has do with the Union. day, wage rate, the rate of the Union a $10 carpenter employed every day simply journeyman aas only $2,340. could make When we take considera- into tion the number of months in the winter time when find, work is hard to opinion Court is of that by the estimate made and his witnesses is large. rather
“There was a testimony upon line of which the Court of the decision outside ánd take its decision can base testimony speculation, and that mere the realm of by testimony given the witnesses as to certain of practically all the carpenters worked of who number cent, eighty-five per time, that worked the number cent, seventy per time, the number that worked cent, time, sixty per the number that worked cent, forty time, per the number that worked cent, time, twenty-five per that and the number worked Striking average of the time. an that the Court is person that a such as the evidence shows been, family Mr. Johnson to have a man with a and seeking employment, prob- anxious to work and would ably neighborhood year during make in the $1600 years Then, expelled that he was from the Union. January, commencing forepart first of with the January, his evidence shows that he made between year; that between $400 $500 $600 In 1929 the evidence shows he had some con- $500. $1,000, tract work and made about 1930 between Assuming year, that he made $400 $500. $1600 taking largest fig- amount that he made at his years ure four and two months covered complaint’and supplemental complaint time laboring disability having he was under the been expelled lost, according from the Union he figures Court’s $4000.” appellant insists that there
Counsel for was no evi- $4,000 fix dence which enabled the court to meas- plaintiff; ure of sustained by guess, arrived at the amount court which this con- Vermilyea, demned in 175 P. Richards v. absolutely case there P. 121. no *4 fixing basis for the in conclusion reached the court damages ; n guesswork. purely the amount of it was Such is not the fact in the instant case. damage way majority
In suits there is no damages sustained, showing party has exact fixing there must for the of the amount. basis apply rule should think the same like In this we a case case, recompense for the injury a fair personal as in a have earned plaintiff otherwise would loss of what earning by deprived calling, been has his approve wrongful complained of. the statement act We many “It is obvious that follows: 17 C. J. exact, susceptible not the amount of cases admeasurement, largely pecuniary rest in the but must jury jury, are to con- and the entitled discretion evidence in with their knowl- sider the connection own edge, experience.” observation think there is
We substantial evidence findings judgment, to sustain the record and the denying trial; hence, pur order the motion for a new long authorities, judgment suant to a line must al., be affirmed. Butzbach v. Siri et P.(2d) 533.
Judgment affirmed.
Ducker, J.: I concur.
Sanders, J., dissenting: appeal. was settled on the former
The law of this case trial and decision of the court adheres closely prepared have law seems to been dam- with assiduous care to award such ages proximate were the direct and result of unlawful as member of the defendant Local Union No. 971. record, repeated I cannot examinations of
After from the trial court’s affirm the deducible judg- intelligent opinion No can be had of the decision. reviewing out ment without first the facts of which appears It mem- case arose. became a Local ber of Union No. hereinafter referred to as Local, March, July, agent delegate repre- elected as the business sent the Local in the Builders’ and Trades Council of County, organization composed Washoe an of affiliated *5 wit, date, July locality. to crafts in that On union 1, 1924, important plaintiff to the office was elected agent of of Builders’ and Trades business said Council. June, 1926, delegate plaintiff In defeated as a was represent to Local in Coun- the Builders’ and Trades regular meeting Septem- At cil. a of the held Local 13,1926, plaintiff, presence ber two members present, gave intemperate utterance to certain bitter language disposition to show his attitude and toward the Local, language its officers and members. The was “Why follows: change hell don’t name organization S-of a B-of an from the United Carpenters Brotherhood of and Joiners of America to Petty the Contractors and Politicians Associations?” consequence In plaintiff’s of the utterance a motion in the form meeting of a resolution made was at this plaintiff’s expulsion as a member of the Local for trying working against to create dissention and harmony openly of the Brotherhood. The part language admitted that attributed to true, him openly then and there demanded charged he be and tried in the mode and manner provided in section 54 constitution of the Local for the response In members. demand, meeting
his chairman of ruled that having part charge member admitted that a preferred against true, him was a trial was unneces- sary under the Whereupon constitution Local. put rising the motion was to a vote present, who numbered or of a scattered mem- bership of about 130. The motion carried a vote against Notwithstanding expulsion. of 36 for and expulsion, the vote of continued to hold agent the office of of the Builders’ and Trades business up January 1927, showing Council that his stand- ing expulsion. as a union man not affected January 25, 1927, plaintiff voluntarily On declined office, giving to stand for as his rea- reelection sons therefor that under the circumstances it would in that labor movement the best interests to hold office
locality not continue that he should agent crafts affiliated with of the several of business filed August, council. below, September, complaint in and in the court lengthy complaint, against filed sev- amended *6 defendants, demanding damages alleged eral as for expulsion willful, malicious, wrongful, and unlawful $100,000 actual from the Local the sum of damages. $100,000 punitive and in addition the sum plain- ordered, adjudged, the It was and decreed that 'tiff the sum of have and recover from the defendants $4,000 damages. actual parts; one, appeal appeal into two is divided
The joint judgment $4,000, the other from and from the appealing motion for denying defendants’ an order defendant International I note that a new trial. is Carpenters Joiners of America and Brotherhood of party appeal, presumably the reason not a to ever with appear was served that it does not that appeared The defendant in the action. summons or defendants, appeal in their Local and the individual judgment, is insuffi that evidence from the insist its support the decision of the trial court cient to judgment against I am of that is law. one, judgment against reasons; is law for several voluntary unincorporated is defendant Local a associa general tion, name. The common or local its sued in voluntary unincorporated that law a rule of common is its common name rec cannot be sued in association World, ognized of the Industrial Workers Branson v. against 270, 95 inj 30 P. case an unction that organization affirmed the individual members of the theory upon representatives were sued as organization, membership entire which was scattered, numerous and in the at but not so case bar. The representa individual defendants are not as sued Local, tives membership entire their capacity Therefore, as individual members the Local. against judgment the Local could not be rendered merely by Local is name. The obvi ously judice, non should vacated as such. coram Maclay Meads, App. Cal. Co.
P. 364. judgment against
Whether the the individuals named legal presents ques- is valid defendants different complaint against tion. The sufficient them as individually. charges complaint members sued par- individual defendants as members of the Local ticipated plaintiff’s expulsion, contrary which was right, high-handed, arbitrary proceeding common equivalent law, contrary to mob to due course procedure provided in the constitution laws of Local. findings The trial court’s decision and refute charge. The court considered largely responsible expulsion for his because vituperate attack made him on the Local and its officers. court considered that While present hastily voting expulsion acted plaintiff, contrary *7 nevertheless and his was in procedure provided violation of in the the constitu- tion expulsion laws Local for the of a mem- ber plaintiff the that was entitled to recover such damages proximate were the direct and his as result of not, however, necessarily expulsion. unlawful It does judg- follow that court was authorized to render a against ment the sixteen individual members for damages by majority pres- occasioned the act of the voting expulsion ent in for resolution plaintiff. Why defendants, the sixteen as individual Local, should have selected been singled plaintiff complaint being his as out responsible expulsion, is a matter of inference why conjecture. appears particular reason No plain- individual members be held should liable for the damage any tiff’s more than the other members constituting majority plaintiff’s who voted for the expulsion. There is evidence in the record no to show the individual defendants as members of the Local contrary, in the absence of
acted in faith. On the bad act, presumption proof so to show that did expulsion judg- an error of merely misinterpretation pro- ment law or expulsion for the of the Local vided in constitution Furthermore, in form makes of member. equally voting against liable with the resolution the five majority voting joined the sixteen with who plaintiff’s damage expulsion occasioned for the membership of expulsion, as as the entire unlawful well the Local. record is my the entire consideration
The result upon court evidence submitted that there was no adjudge properly find and possibly and it could legal wrong the direct done proximate individual defend- of the sixteen result participation ants’ arising, this, from of the Local. case member organization, disputes a labor
internal and discords in higher importance pre- it that this court should is of far .respect serve inviolate the fundamental limitations jurisdiction, though that an even considered expelled had action for member a cause of and reinstatement as a member. judg- views,
Entertaining I decline to affirm the these ment. Rehearing Petition
On (2d) January P. 448. *8 OPINION
By Court, Coleman, J.: rehearing, petition
Appellants for a have filed a wrong conclu- contend we reached damages, urge question sion on the and now for points. first time other rehearing they petition
In the for a state: page appellant’s appears opening “On 14 of brief following: “ Assignments ‘An examination of the Error will following reveal the case resolves itself into the issue: “ plaintiff allege T. prove Did such actual dam- ages because of his from the Union entitle him to a for Four Thousand Dollars ($4,000.00) ?’
“While is true that pre- this was the main issue Court, sented to the there were certain elements mak- ing up issue, following: this one of which plaintiff’s expulsion
“Was the from the Union the proximate direct and result of the acts of the sixteen individual defendants? did not
“We devote much attention to this fact either opening brief, reply upon argu- our brief or the oral ment, particularly ruling because of the Court’s former case.” think this is a conclusive admission that we cor-
We rectly opinion only ques- stated in the former damages. tion involved was one of question have further considered that and are of
We that our former conclusion must stand. urged repeatedly point have held that a We petition rehearing time first will not be con Smith, sidered. Nelson
342 227, 206, Estate, Forney’s 43 184 P. 625; Nev. P. In Re Estate, 553; 678, 47 24 R. In Re Pedroli’s 186 A. L. P. 841; 241, 807, L. In Re 313, 224 31 A. R. 221 P. P. Nev. 783; Estate, 106, P. v. Carroll Howard’s 3; Carroll, Blankenship Blanken 51 Nev. ship, 280 P. 63 A. L. R. 1127. 52 Nev. rehearing petition denied. Ducker, J.: I concur.
Sanders, C. I J.: dissent. Et Al. Et Al. v. TARBELL
TARDY No. 2995 P.(2d) 656. December Respondent E. Noland, for R. Tarbell: & Nokmd