Reid v. Independent Union of All Workers

REID STELLA v. INDEPENDENT OF ALL WORKERS UNION

AND OTHERS. VOORHEES, JOSEPH v. RELATOR.1 Sеptember 24, 1937. 31,192.

No. Carlson, A. Baker and E. relator. Josiah Gilbert Sasse, Dunnette, respondent. French & Justice. Stone, Certiorari to review relator’s conviction for contempt. after

September 29, 1936, upon hearing, notice and the Honor- E. Peterson, judge judicial district, able Norman of the tenth issued injunction restraining picket- defendants from certain “beauty shop” by plaintiff activities aimed at a maintained ing city Voorhees, present of Austin. Defendant chose relator, 1 Reported in 275 N. W. 300. hearing violated and thereafter at a ignore injunction, it, A. ninth G-islason, judges

before the Honorable B. one judicial district, adjudged guilty contempt sentenced to county jail. four months’ in the imprisonment had not been served and was not Peter- Judge The answer before injunction. son he But temporary when ordered the the issues from and the arising complaint answer were before court on the They (1) controversy two number: Whether the hearing. were involved a labor within definition of L. c. dispute the 12(a) and Minn. 12(c), Supp. 4260-12(a) (c), 3 Mason St. 1936 §§ § “An relating disputes entitled act to labor and to define and limit jurisdiction any restraining the of the courts to issue order or tem- porary injunction (2) or in such cases.” permanent Whether de- by fendants their and other activities were to picketing attempting compel plaintiff join them in a in unlawful conspiracy restraint ignored by Judge trade. The second issue was Peterson in granting the which was based on temporary injunction, exclusively his conclusion that no labor within the of the meaning act was involved.

While this writ is a direct attack the of con viction, it cannot succeed unless the temporary injunction, issued findings fact, nullity. without was a That is because pro is a collateral and not a direct attack ceeding injunction, that under the rule of such cases as State ex rel. Tuthill v. Giddings, 98 Minn. 107 N. W. 1048. There the relator had violated the injunction affirmative form of which we call the writ mandamus. collaterally that it could not be impeached It was held or avoided one, punish in a such as the instant proceeding, the relator for writ. of the his disobedience words, other order to succeed here relator must show Judge nullity.

that the action of was a L. Peterson 1933, c. 416, equivocation attempt curtail, does without to the extent indi district court to cated, “jurisdiction” the of the issue injunctions. district court, of the which Whether was created the constitution rather than the by and defined legislature, can be is not before us. legislature, limited No so has Jurisdiction the act. constitutionality of' as to the beеn raised regulate legislature constitution aside, provides our Const, 14. 6, art. courts. proceedings practice impinging without strictly speaking, Doubtless, therefore, may, 1933 law by the court, legislature it. duty upon imposed a properly be to have assume, we deemed on the judicial between See the distinction Fauntleroy Lum, made duty other, one hand and mere on the in Marin repeated U. 52 L. ed. S. 28 S. Ct. Also, ed. 1038. Augedahl, U. 38 S. Ct. grounds, would futile study of on constitutional statute, constitutional truth that “the ignored the obvious proportion different entirely raised our state statute are problems Minnesota, McClintock, by any those raised” federal statute. Rev. Act, Labor 21 Minn. L. Disputes Injunction matter by way caution, With mere we treat foregoing Judge whether jurisdiction, postulate as one of “findings fact,” (L. 1933, c. Peterson had after power, except whether 7) depended upon issue the him nothing before Certainly, labor dispute. action involved a question on the mere asseveration could not determine that he or their counsel. The litigants respective or other of the one first requiring of mixed law and fact ascertain- question was one If in thereto. the facts showing respect from the ment facts decided, dispute,” Judge no “labor as Peterson the statute shоwed inter- negative not It is decision an issue of apply. did that And no fact that is now under collateral attack. mingled law and (or any in labor case other for wherein, cited case has been matter), collateral, such a decision has been nullified as direct, attack. distinguished from case, thing judge determine, the first district to such question decision if the presented, he avoid its is cannot Of in- applies. general subject-matter the statute

whether As unquestioned jurisdiction. long nothing as he has junctions, can beings human be found wherewith to im- than more infallible jurisdiction implies, regret- matter of courts, such our plement inescapable but necessity, table to decide is the decide power erroneously correctly. to as well as it As was put Foltz v. St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co. C. (C. A.) 60 F. 318:

“Nor limited to It making correct decisions. empowers the court to every determine within scope issue its authority according to its own view evidence, of the law and the right whether its decision is wrong, or de- every judgment or so rendered is final cision and conclusive upon parties it, unless reversed writ appeal, of error or or impeached for fraud.” of our federal courts limited and its bound- diligently aries observed. Occasionally, however, judges federal have made the mistakе deciding cases of which later it was dis- they jurisdiction. covered should have taken Notwithstanding, it has been held that the resulting judgments not open were attack. An collateral illustrative case is Des Moines &R. Nav. Co. Iowa Homestead Co. 123 U. S. 217, 220, 8 S. Ct. L. ed. wherein it was said:

“Whether such a case the suit could be removed ques- was a tion for the circuit court decide when it was called on to take If jurisdiction. it kept the case when it ought to been have re- adjudicate or if it manded, proceeded to upon matters in between two citizens of Iowa, ought when to have confined itself those between citizens Iowa and the citizens of New York, its final decree the suit could have reversed, appeal, been erroneous, nullity. but the decree would not been a have To deter- mine whether the suit was removable whole or in part, not; within certainly was of the circuit court. The decision rightful of that was the exercise and juris- exercise of against no matter whether in favor of or diction, taking the cause.” Beardsley, In an Colton v. Barb. early case, the whole thus: concisely put proposition jurisdiction of an inferior tribunal depends upon

“When the required to ascertain and by fact which such tribunal determine is final until reversed in decision, proceed- decision a dirеct such cases, is in such jurisdiction, of ing purpose. The test not and inquiry, upon tribunal has to enter whether the wrong.” right of it in the were conclusions course whether its study subject, our cases attempting digest of the Without in their approach. cautions to be observed suggests of them certain matter, may, particular in a jurisdiction of First, general a court distinc statutory authority.” The “under proceeding special proceeding between such a jurisdiction tion of on the of court jurisdiction general an action within ordinary ed. 959. There 350, 370, Galpin Page, v. Wall. stressed special under a statute attack upon a collateral jurisdiction record shoAvedabsence because the successful statutory special A of such a familiar illustration party. essential real delinquent in those for the enforcement is found proceeding statutory failure to comply substantial Avhere estate taxes fatal. If jurisdiction appears held prerequisites for a collateral attack. That face it insures success record, Ill. Lowe, rule Senichka typical application had at proceed lack or to jurisdiction anything To such a to do say” Ill. “absurd to applicable all is the statement that it is [74 276] jurisdiction very is conclusive “Avhеnthe finding favor jurisdic was void for want of finding record would show that this tion find in the Such dicta never anything Avhatever case.” conflicting evidence, apply where, opposing pleadings thereby presented. decide an issue Error proceed court must such to make a decision does vitiate the it. care, it is and Avith both

Second, highly important examine, “Erro targets of such statements as this: legal factual subject as to its own an action neous decision have en jurisdiction is, said, without as we rendered court ac parties no conclusive effect to the tirely void has their might have though persons.” tion, 269 N. Fawcett, 379, 390, Mail S. S. Co. Y. Matter of Baltimore language L. R. 1068. That used E. 104 A. Avas 199 N. of prohibition of New York a Avrit appeals granting the court against the further with supreme court, preventing proceeding a question. the In words, attack, case other it direct was a petition for a writ always is, jurisdiction of prohibition upon the the inferior tribunal or in manner. There proceed given to at all a nothing collateral about it. It is immaterial the wholly lower court already proceed. has determined that may being factors decision those of direct as from col- distinguished attack, lateral language quoted entirely the above was accurate. In Illinois practice mandamus, the has where developed using prohibition tardy, has been vacation compel judg of an order or ment for want of jurisdiction. void Such a case was rel. People ex Ill. 189 N. E. Shurtleff, Carlstrom The rea soning opinion of the indicates that majority the was proceeding a direct upon question, releasing attack the order considered one a prisoner corpus, writ of habeas which was nullified the mandamus compelling its vacation. Concurring in the Mr. result, objected Chief Orr to such and,' Justice use of the writ of mandamus from rel. quoting People ex Barrett Shurtleff, Ill. 187 N. E. he stated what consider generaliza we a correct tion : not jurisdiction

“The does depend sufficiency the bill. the If subject the court has of the matter—that is, the render power to a decree the class of cases to which particular case in question belongs—and parties, nothing further re- quired. The cause of action may defectively bill, stated but will destroy jurisdiction. not Jurisdiction of subject simply, matter does mean, particular of the case before the court, but of the class of cases which the particular belongs. case Jurisdiction depend does not upon the rightfulness decision. It. is not lost of an bеcause erroneous however decision, erroneous that decision be.” thought connection this In injunction intrudes. cases, where first is whether there is a involved labor dispute, can with affirmative come party here and successfully apply a prohibition prevent for a from judge writ district entering far looking him we bar at all? Could upon any consideration his to get .evidence taking enough enough pleadings into con- question whether he court, trial to the answer, own sense, logic or either of formula, dispute.” a “labor No fronted with revolutionary procedure. such justify has itself suggested ofmay relator injunction, if in this collateral attack on Yet, instance in the first here he should have come right prevail, say, ground, let us of prohibition for writ petition presented, that, while he was sure that labor a contrary. (Such erroneously to the judge might decide district jurisdic- the of below into issue inquiry have prevented writ would re- would petition a other.) Consideration of such any or tion, very try trial, court, not as an but as quire us, appellate, law fact or both. might be one of first which presented, issue course, beyond appellate of would our function That, be other, for trial courts. Like court. a decision is Such subject to the here, as it has been it is merged judgment, when direct between long-standing elementary distinguishing rule exceptions attack. have no to create and collateral We and a judicial usurpation grant- do Avould rank that rule. To so be than of lawful ing judgment. of unlawful favor rather the rendition attempt made to here the plain apply To show the error of the N. Y. Fawcett, Mail S. S. dictum of Matter of Baltimore Co. 269 L. R. of that 379, 628, 1068, very 199 N. E. 104 A. we take the facts injured had working Madsen been while a seaman case. One resulting he had sued for the steamship relator, which on opinion, the facts stated Because of damage. case in the proceed that to allow Madsen’s courts held

appeals upon would be an unconstitutional burden interstate New York Equity 262 Co-op. rule of Davis v. Farmers Co. under the commerce L. 556, they S. 67 ed. 996. 43 Ct. Therefore held that 312, S.U. granted pro- courts were Avithout New York prosecuted that Madsen had his Now, suppose case hibition. in the judgment New York courts. him, successful final, and therein, the steamship company, then have the defendant Could attack successfully upon judgment a collateral maintained 606

lack jurisdiction, assuming that it had the record appeared first, from the in vain along, the defendant all as it did objecting until its resort to No сan no rule be prohibition? cited, case can formulated to sustain York ‍‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌‍that, the conclusion the courts of New having jurisdiction generally transitory actions and personam necessary parties, their would supposed the case not have been immune to collateral attack. Foltz St. again See Ry. (C. & F. C. A.) Louis S. Co. 60 F. Nav. & 316, and Des Moines R. Co. v. Co. Iowa Homestead U. L. S. 8 S. Ct. 31 ed. Layers

Senn v. Tile Protective Local No. Union, Wis. 268 N. 270,W. affirmed U. S. 57 Ct. ed. has much of but present relevancy. interest nothing -The case went up appeal. Neither in the decision the state nor in that of the supreme court is there anything touching differing criteria of decision collateral and direct attack. Mr. Justice FoAvler supreme court of Wisconsin dissented ground Wis. “the Avithin case is not [222 391] labor code.” American Furniture v. I. Co. B. of T. andC. H. A. 222 Wis. N. W. 106 L. 335, prin- A. R. cipal issue, the first considered by supreme court, Avas whether there was a “labor as defined the statute.” It was decided the affirmative.

Our own case of Ordean v. Grannis, 118 Minn. 117, 118, 136 N. typical. There, W. is another the action, district court had judgment entered a which it was distinctly its duty not to enter under a controlling statute. But the rule applied Avas that Avherea court has generally subject of the matter and renders a parties the Avhich it had if the pleaded proved to render facts it, warranted such judg ment, “though pleadings еrroneous under the and proof in case, the void, is not and cannot be attacked collaterally.” this case as precisely if, That is basis for consideration, we assume for the facts all that relator for claims them. On that resulting the decision the hypothesis, temporary injunction was That if is, not void. relator right erroneous but is on the merits, if he had long reversed before decision would have been the mentioned) (hereinafter attack the method direct speedy chosen and which by statute injunction, afforded the the temporary on is col- attack present But the offered to facilitate. Judge Peterson if for no fail for that reason direct, than and must rather lateral other. mere in sum of assertion argument for relator consists the case decide that jurisdiction to

the district court was without to de- capacity If if was no there dispute. so, no labor presented opposite. to determine the way, gone power one also is the cide either issue any to decide Yet courts must do have the the labor in- And under as law and evidence determine. way the purpose very it is essence their ours, such of the junction acts, dispute. a labor there is determine, first, the court whether it controls. is the is out of the case—otherwise none, If there statute duty it our case, the but we consider enough That is decide 1933, 416, 9, c. reads thus: much of addition. make this issue or Minnesota shall any “Whenever court of State involving in a case out injunction growing deny any temporary request party dispute, shall, a labor the court costs, bond forth- filing his usual for proceedings to the ordinary the record of case to the cases certify Upon filing review. such record in Supreme Court shall be heard and the in- Court, appeal Supreme modified, greatest or set aside with affirmed, order junctive all giving proceedings precedence over other expedition, possible matters of the same character.” except matters older now review considering Without whether certification review, at least most and satis- speedy exclusive method impact It clear factory recognizes implication one. doctrine of collateral attack disputes by providing labor mechanism direct attack. With such a statu- speedy new and injunction of excuse defend- there no shadow tory setup, will bad or (they violate the take no counsel who ant to to review it. That has any previous attempt special without do) application very to this for case, Judge Peterson, affirma- passing tively upon the application for said: temporary injunction,

“If the defendants I will as the desire, certify today, or soon papers can be I Court, to the which prepared, Supreme the order will today sign, by for review and it can be Supreme Court, promptly reviewed, as to whether or not the labor union is within rights enforcing, or attempting by picketing, to enforce compelling of the signing by by a merchant or an operator over business, there of a of an agreement fixing prices.” We take this occasion of advising bar and the public that, in the celerity interest of economy our are procedure, rules in the course amendment so as necessity to obviate the for print- ing either records briefs in a case certified to under L. 1933, us c. 416, 9.§

If under our rules there in appeals,” is “dilatoriness is, by review questions arising certification of under L. 1933, c. the cause will not be found here. Reduced almost to point extinction working year are the weeks when there is not available for prompt consideration and any decision of issue requiring treatment, quorum such of this court. Our capacity respect has been tested somewhat under the statute (1 Mason 490) Minn. St. for providing summary- review here questions arising under the election laws on occasion requiring possible decision at the earliest moment. Assuming no freedom error, yet any we have to hear of charge dilatoriness require such matters public expedition interest in adjudication. no event, the instant case involves strike and hence offers any criticism on target ground that the legitimate interest adversely by of strikers orderly affected but speedy pro? specially up cedure for review set their benefit the statute is for thereby itself. The alternative those affected decide for obey when; judgments laws to what themselves what to fulfill what to violate. Such ruinous cultivation the fields of de- consequent and the evacuation thereof the farm hands mocracy tillage under without whose faithful orderly administration law.

g()9 democracy ripen, things can was of all not contem- harvest by statute. plated

We have considered writ. Of properly presented by the facts them, it is to of con- enough say they well sustain the viction, which is affirmed.

Affirmed. (concurring specially).

Gallagher, Chief Justice It seems to me that when it be party litigant, either whether employer or employe, invokes act, the benefits the labor c. 416, he becomes by bound conditions; words, other those who acсept its benefits must assume its and in asserting burdens rights their should procedure follow the outlined therein. point- As ed out in the majority opinion, provides that act re- speedy by view appeal to this court any whenever court of the state of Minnesota shall or deny issue any temporary injunction in a case involving or growing out of a dispute. labor The act further pro- vides that the trial court shall, upon request party to the proceedings his the usual bond filing for costs, forthwith certify the case to this court for review. The record shows that Peterson at Judge the time of the issuance of the in- temporary junction offered immediately certify the case accordance with the provisions of the labor act. The defendant did not see fit to preserve his rights by appeal the manner provided in the act; other words, he is now attempting assert his rights by relying provisions certain of the labor act and at the same time at- tempting escape his own failure to take advantage of other pro- adopted visions for his benefit and protection. This he cannot do. majority The opinion is based upon the assumption that even though the trial court erroneously decided that the case did not present a labor disputе, the decision upon that issue is not now subject to a collateral attack. It seems to me the record presented the trial court could well have found that the case did not involve a labor dispute. its final analysis the only issue between Stella and the plaintiff, Eeid, defendant Union and its officers to the rates pertained .plaintiff must charge her customers for rendered. clearly price-fixing requirement services That was At the in- illegal. hearing application junction and in her before, conversations the defendant Voor- hees, plaintiff offered to with all comply other demands made Union. This denied by was not the defendants at the trial and constituted record when the matter was trial presented court. From that record the court arrived at the conclusion that the case did not involve a labor dispute.

That recognized the defendant the correctness of the court’s ruling is evidenced what followed. application The for a tem- porary injunction was heard on September 28,1936..

issued following day. On October 1, 1936, the Union, defendant of which the in defendant this case was an officer, wrote a letter . to plaintiff reading the as follows: “Re—Stella Reid vs. Union All Independent of Workers, et al.: “Dear Madam:

“The district court has made its order in the above entitled action that finding the wages schedule of and prices previously submitted you to and negotiations the following do not involve a labor dis- pute. The court also finds that union the cannot legally prices set charged customers in agreements with beauty shops.

“In conformity with the terms of this order submit we herewith a schedule of wages paid beauty to be shop operators omitting to be prices charged customers beauty shops. the You your and counsel, French, Mr. in stated court on hearing the this matter that no you objection have to wage schedule previously sub- mitted. Please note that the enclosed schedule is on a piece work basis. wages paid The under it will amount to the same as under the former but proposal, without in it anything requiring you to charge any specified customers amounts. For instance the old requires shops charge schedule to for permanent $3.00 wave and operator charge allows as wages, amounting 40% for to be to the worker paid giving permanent wave. $1.20 You charge anything you can customers like under this new agreement. rea- wage only feature and “What we are interested merely old schedule was including prices custоmer’s son On matter see determining wages. considering method we we must conforming your certainly no wishes objection conform to the court’s order. We submit the enclosed schedule therewith. compliance you

“We to thank for the consideration this matter given Avish will very glad you with us. cooperate we are

“Very truly yours, “Beauticians Unit No. Local.. Independent op No. Union All Workers.

“Sanford McCourt, Business Agent.”. Attached the letter new Avasa proposed agreement embodying minimum commissions to be paid employes, apparently drafted purpose eliminating that part original proposed agree- ' ment to Avhiclithe plaintiff objected. FolloAvingthis and on Octo- ber 1936, defendants in injunction action served upon plain- tiff’s counsel notice motion to temporary injunction vacate the and assigned grounds therefor “that things defendants have all complied with the terms of temporary injunction said reasons for granting longer such no exist and that said injunction can longer serve a useful purpose.” Attached to notice of motion Averecopies of the proposed letter second agreement hereinbefore referred to. original notice of motion proof Avas service offered thе defendant an as exhibit proceeding (exhibit DD) and comes here as one the ex- hibits.

The to injunction motion vacate the temporary was returnable of awaiting October 15. Instead action on the motion, the defend- ant this action deliberately violated its conditions October day one after the notice motion was served and days several before the date fixed thereon. hearing What transpired subse- temporary to the issuance quent injunction not important immediately court; on the issues bearing as before this as namely, as to whether had and trial court to whether to referred As the evidence stated, was involved. dispute labor case recognized to the defendants me that clearly indicates did not injunction temporary of the of the time issuance at the position their correct dispute such a endeavored present strengthen not one. This could so to create after its issuance their position. Peterson at the udge an issue before J my judgment,

In there was injunction temporary hearing application of the on the time the record Upon a labor dispute. the case involved as whether other him I do how he could decide not see before labor was dispute if a uр matter, he did. To sum way than the Even though correct. judge the action of the trial was involved, advantage failed to take involved, the defendant dispute a labor remedy. either plainly fixing act his provisions and for the reasons now heard to complain he cannot event, prevail proceeding. cannot in this stated I concur the result. (concurring). Justice

Loring, Mr. expressed by I am in accord with the views Justice Stone. I special time the soundness of the concur- recognize At the same Mr. Chief Gallagher. ‍‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌‍rence of Justice Peterson, (dissenting). Justice injunction temporary for the was heard application oral All complaint, testimony. been affidavits,

verified have At hearing record this case. part to us returned answer, relator had not interposed for the No any affidavits, produced testimony. file no oral did not litigated. litigate There were none because there was facts were complaint as to them. The discloses its face that labor controversy dispute, involved is a the affidavits and testimony, impeach, vary, enlarge not admissible oral while allegations. substantiate complaint, is defined dispute A labor dispute. case involves a labor This (printed 4260-122 Minn. Supp. 3 Mason St. 1936 statute. statute to margin). pertinent case, in in the As far as this full terms and concerning labor to dispute controversy defines a the dispu of of whether or not regardless employment conditions employe., of proximate employer tants stand relation or provides grow The statute that a case held involve shall be out of a en dispute persons labor when involves who are the case gaged occupation, the same whether industry, trade, craft, or such of dispute is between or or employers one more associations employers and one employes. or more or associations employes 2 “§4260-12: purposes Definitions—When used in act for the act—(a) of this A grow case shall be held involve or to out of a labor dispute persons when engaged the case involves who are in the same industry, trade, occupation; craft or or have direct or indirect interests therein; employes or employer; who are same or who are members organization of the same or employers employees;’ an affiliated or dispute (1) whether such employers or between one more or associa employers employees tions of and one or more or associations of em plоyees; (2) employers between employers one or more or associations of employers one employers; or more or (S) associations of or between employees or employees one more or associations of and one or more employees employees any or associations of or when the case involves conflicting competing dispute’ (as or interests in a ‘labor hereinafter defined) ‘persons participating (as or interested’ therein hereinafter defined).

“(b) person person A or association participat- shall be held be a ing sought against it, or interested in labor if relief is him or engaged industry, trade, craft, occupation and if he or in the same or dispute occurs, therein, in which such or has a or indirect interest direct agent member, officer, composed or or or association in whole employers employees engaged industry, trade, craft, part or such occupation. or any controversy concerning

“(c) dispute’ The term ‘labor includes concerning employment, repre- or association or terms or conditions of negotiating, maintaining, changing, persons fixing, or seek- sentation of employment, regardless arrange ing of whether terms or conditions proximate employer disputants in the relation stand not the or employee. (b) act provides:

Subsection ' participat- 'person be held to be person “A association shall him against sought if dispute labor relief or interested ing trade, craft, industry, or in the same engaged and if he it is it, or in- direct or has a occurs, or dispute which such occupation or any of associ- agent or member, officer, is a therein, interest or direct or en- employees of part employers or in composed ation whole or trade, craft, occupation.” industry, in such gaged Avithin the dispute labor alleges its face complaint The employer that is an of alleges of meaning plaintiff the statute.- It 1,No. is composed that Unit No. Local beauticians; Beauticians’ are that the individual defendants beauticians and employed and that re organization; named she employes and of the agents percent employes sign proposed agreement pay fused to her paid the wage The to be charged public. be the age prices Thus prices charged public. is a the the percentage beauticians wages. fix A charged copy thе standard of public the the prices *3. margin.* pro in the She proposed agreement printed charge modified the agreement public as so as to -sign posed objected defendants to this because prices. a lower scale of The employes. employes actual Her were wages paid reduced the and the based Her prices wages with her scale of thereon. satisfied that labor because she dispute was no had contention there only and because claimed that Avithher she dispute employes charge Avhichshe prices public. was as should dispute persons against participating asked defendants in and Relief is and employes, officers, agents in this of de interested organizations. fendant “(d) term ‘court the State of Minnesota’ The means court of may has or Minnesota whose been be

the State of conferred Legislature. (Act Apr. or limited Act or c. defined 12.)” § 3July 16, 1936. May It To Whom : Concern agrees IUAW, Unit No. Local No. Beauticians follow- The charges prices specified

ing shall be minimum on the schedule anti-injunction, act is The not confined to labor between disputes employers employes. By (c) provided 4260-12 it is need not stand “in disputants proximate employer relation and employee.” controversy It is sufficient that relate to terms and conditions of employment, persons engaged who are involving industry, in the trade, craft, occupation. disputants same employer be an and an employe employes. or an association By an employe employe is meant not an who is one employer beauty work, following observed, opening closing hours shall be following wages wages paid operators: and that the shall the minimum

PRICES Dyes Permanent $3.00 Waves $2.50 Hair Treatment, Scalp Permanent End Curls 2.50 Shampoo Permanent Indiv. Curls 1.00 .25 ea. Marcels .50 .25 Color Rinse Dye Eye Resets Eye .35 Lash .50 Brow Finger (Dry) Waves .50 .35 Arch Finger (Wet) Waves .50 .35 Manicure Shampoos Shampoo 1.00 Pack & .35 Henna Facials Progressive 1.00 Permanent & Shampoo 2.00

Tints & HOURS appointments No Monday, before 8 Á. M. after 6 or P. M. Wednes- day, Thursday. appointments No Tuesday, Friday, before 8 A. orM. after 8 P. onM. Saturday. and operator No to work more than 54 hours a week. WAGES permanent waves, beauty commission on other work all 40% 50% guarantee $12,50' per operators working with minimum of week for all shop year, guarantee in one per less than a and minimum of $14.00 operators working year shop

week for all in one one or more. For extra guarantee day. work, per minimum $2.00 BEAUTICIANS UNIT NO. LOCAL 1. NO. Byrdella Signed: Born, President Phyllis Carpenter, See’y-Treas. Acknowledged before me day July, 16th of 1936.

this County, Hoffman—Mower I. M.

Notary My commission Public.

expires Nov. employer who his matter employe, but no any of disputants, association not mean an employes be. An association does may one by an who is employer who are employes employed by matter composed employes disputants, but an association known generally employed. recognizes whom The act they are in in- employment fact that and conditions wages economic prevailing or those dustry, craft, occupation are affected trade, Justice Mr. Chief every shop employment. in place other Coun- Trade Tri-City Central in American Steel Foundries Taft, R. 27 A. L. 72, 78, 66 L. ed. cil, 257 U. S. Ct. employes all effective render combination at stated that one and that beyond shop, combinations extend must make their inor in the same trade helpful many is to have em- in between competition “because community united, same in wages bound affected the standard of are to be ployers they per- that a neighborhood.” provides The statute their trade against dispute sought if “relief son is interested the labor * * * * * * industry, him if same engaged he * * * occurs, in which .trade, occupation or such craft, association agent сomposed or is a or member, officer, ** * employees engaged industry, or in such part whole trade, occupation.” craft, apply employers under acts are held to arising

Cases similar belong entirely do not to unions and who satis- whose are employes have no with working controversy conditions who fied their under the the con- It sufficient statute that employer. their employers or associations troversy be between workers others Senn Tile employers. Layers and such Protective employes No. 301 U. S. 57 S. Ct. 81 L. Union, Local ed. 274, 872; 268 N. W. & affirming Levering 222 Wis. Gar- 71 (C. A.) (2d) 284, Morrin C. F. certiorari denied, v. rigues Co. L. v. 110, 688; Ct. 79 ed. Dehan Hotel & 595, U. 55 S. Restau- 293 S. (La. 159 App.) 637; etc. Local Union So. Cinderella rant Employees, Union (D. C.) Local F. Sign Supp. 164; v. Writers’ 6 Theater Co. I. B. of T. and H. of 222 Co. v. C. Wis. 338, American Furniture A. 335; L. Bros. Upholsterers’ 106 A. R. Fenske v. 250, N. 268 W.

617 A. R. 1318. N. E. L. Union, International 358 Ill. court below It is therefore clear that the decision dispute of a labor jurisdictional the existence error, as matter of law. the basis of this Upon erroneous jurisdiction court invested itself with of the case. condi requirements findings of fact as a statutory juris are injunction

tion to the issuance of an a labor majority dictional. It is conceded in opinion of the court. jurisdiction duty c. to the and not to the goes limit as one to We could nоt hold otherwise. The act is entitled in labor dis issuing injunctions of the courts in jurisdiction “No commences: regulates procedure, which putes, § of Minnesota shall have issue court State grow or involving case permanent legislature, etc. The the lead ing dispute,” following out of a labor legislatures many the United and the Congress States, of Mr. Justice Holmes states, acting upon suggestion other 210 U. 28 S. 52 L. ed. Fauntleroy Lum, Ct. juris to limit designed power-—-that is,

a statute duty (see Lowery court rather than its v. State L. diction—of the 442), expressly jurisdic Co. 153 Ind. 54 N. E. limited the Ins. injunctions in labor disputes except tion of the courts to issue procedural requirements with the 7. That compliance strict court that the shall not have to issué provides section findings required statute, after of fact injunctions except by the court below did not make. it is conceded the The Norris which 101-115), (29 USCA, anti-injunction act and state LaGuardia §§ many it, adopted states, modeled after contain this pro laws anti-injunction is such law. Our statute These stat vision. to limit the all been construed have utes regulation judicial as a simply duty. act at all Senn Local No. Union, 5, and Protective American Layers Furni Tile T. C. & H. of A. Geo. B. supra; B. of Wallace Co. v. Co. v. I.

ture P. (2d) Assn. etc. Or. 1090; Dehan v. International etc. Local Employees, Union, supra. note & Restaurant See Hotel I. B. of T. C. & Co. v. H. of A. supra, Furniture American 618 L. 224. In involving

U. of Rev. a case the Norris-LaGuardia Pa. Companies (2d) Electrical Coal Rice C. 80 F. act, (C. A.) United v. 297 U. S. 56 Ct. 1, 5, denied, 714, 590, 1000, certiorari S. 80 L. ed. following language: legislation this is made clear “The Courts, jurisdiction involving- took District of causes question injunction suits between states, labor citizens different * * limited instances To same & effect, Levering certain (C. Morrin 71A.) (2d) ‍‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌‍Co. v. C. Garrigues F. well defining

The rule is established this state that a statute limiting juris a court is to be construed as limiting and as the court to act. Ullman v. dictional 83 D. (381), 8 Minn. 338 Am. State ex rel. Erickson v. Lion, 783; 43 N. W. State ex rel. Holland v. 845; Miesen, 42 Minn. West, N. 513; Minn. 106 N. W. 108 W. Sache v. 101 Wallace, 98 386, L.R.A.(N.S.) 803, Minn. 112 N. W. 118 A. R. ex rel. Evans District 348; Court, Ann. Cas. State 118 Minn. Burnquist State ex rel. v. District 746; Court, 136 N. W. Minn. 1476; N. W. R. Northwestern Fuel Co. Live 1, 168 A. . 182 Minn. 234 N. W. Bank, 304 Stock State void upon its face and at temporary may be collaterally jurisdiction. want of Disregard tacked of statu jurisdiction of tory withdrawing the court to provisions issue a injunction except having after findings made the re quired by invalidity the statute discloses on the face of the pro If appear affirmatively it face of ceedings. the record that order without was made it jurisdiction, is void and collaterally. be attacked 34 C. J. R. 834; 15 C. L. § P. firmly 374. This rule is established this court and p. has in cases too numerous to be cited. In-In applied been re Will of 202, 14 N. Mousseau, 30 Minn. W. a probate proceeding ground the court was attacked was withоut jurisdic the face tion, appearing petition, and the subsequent pro The estate there involved had ceedings. been probated once alleged probate errors second thereof because attempted. treated the as one law to court This decided upon the probate pro- second invalidity of the of the speaking record. Minn. language is used following ceeding, 204]: [30 authority set possessed “But certainly probate guardian aside, do, nonappointment as it assumed to that fact could not under ad litem for an infant because heir, of author- doing. for so This want legal ground circumstances be a subsequent proceed- ity appears upon petitions face court—no ings. petitions presented probate case to lawful juris- a case for the exercise of tending facts make their faces words, petitions diction. In other show that whatever in ex- premises court had no probate consequence judg- is that both the dismiss. The inevitable cept to probate, and the second are ab- annulling probate, ment first entirely void.” solutely Fuel Co. v. 182 Minn. Bank, Northwestern Live Stock State

276, 306, assessing 234 N. an order the stockholders of de 304,W. affirmatively fendant bank was held to be void, by disсlosed Minnesota record, grants power because the law of exclusive to the liquidate of banks to insolvent banks. It commissioner state was of court judgment appointing held that the the district a receiver and making for the defendant bank the assessment was void be power appoint cause the court did not have the receiver statute, make assessment reason of the which places such in hands of the commissioner exclusively of banks. At opinion 281 of the Mr. Justice Holt said: “We think on page of record is disclosed want face of the the district receiver to enforce appoint plaintiff’s judgment.” court to Other on Minn. judgments Lion, cases of collateral attack are Ullman v. 8 judgment Am. D. (381), 783, insolvency proceedings 83 held 338 give creditors; failure to notice to invalid because of State ex rel. 42 Minn. West, 147, 845, v. N. W. on habeas Erickson corpus, court of municipal Minneapolis conviction of void of held of that court; of the in. excess State ex rel. being Minn. 106 N. Miesen, W. 108 N. W. 513, Holland held to contempt conviction be invalid corpus, because hateas failure show right remedy party had been defeated or prejudiced; Sache 101 Minn. Wallace, 112 N. W. L.R.A. (N.S.) 803, 118 R. 612, A. S. 11 Ann. Cas. an action to determine adverse claims which judgment bеyond issues author ized statute was ordered, held to be void as to relief authorized by the proceedings; State ex Evans rel. v. District Court, 118 Minn. 170, 136 N. W. certiorari, injunctional juvenile order of court of Minneapolis, forbidding marriage girl of age years, of 15 personally court, before the held to be void for want jurisdiction; Burnquist State ex rel. v. District Court, Minn. 168 N. W. 634, 3 A. L. R. 1476, prohibition issued out of this court holding proceedings contempt for violation of temporary injunction of court to district be void its face because of want jurisdic tion of district court to proceed against the governor adjutant general under the laws state; ex State Hilton v. rel. Village Kinney, 146 Minn. 178 N. 815, quo W. warranto holding although an election was valid held in violation temporary in junction of federal court which void upon its face for want jurisdiction of the court.

In 15 R. C. p. the rule is stated: “One form of usurpation power on part of a rendering judgment a is where it attempts disregard limitations law prescribed by jurisdiction. restricting its A to comply failure with statutory requirements regulating the exercise jurisdic- the tion a court may t>e to deny to a judgment validity sufficient which will it protect collateral attach. if Thus a statute pro- in vides that a court actions for must, divorce after the trial thereof, file its decision and of law, conclusions if and, it determines that to be ought granted, a divorce must enter an interlocutory judgment year and that after such interlocutory one judgment is entered, the motion of either may, party, court or upon its own motion, enter judgment granting a final the divorce, judgment a entered in the granting instance absolute and first immediate divorce not but is merely, beyond jurisdiction the erroneous of'the court, a court is authorized void. Where statute to entertain jurisdic- only, case it particular tion undertakes to exercise the

621 has the statute in a case to which conferred power and its acquire jurisdiction, doing in so it will no application, collateral attack.” nullity subject will be judgment 9 N. C. Whitley Black, v. sustain the text: following cases A. 545, 16 598, 10 123 A. S. R. 179, 11 753; Wall, Am. D. Wall v. Pa. 106 A. Superior 245, 981, 146 Cal. 79 P. S. R. 549; Court, Grannis v. 421; Y. 38 Am. R. Bank, Gray 83 N. 23; Risley v. Phenix 940; Trust Chickamauga 296 Mo. S. W. Co. v. Clement, 451; Bryner R. 1918D, 201 S. W. A. Lonas, 139 Tenn. 41 P. 712. (2d) 141 Kan. Fernetti, having general a court case of of the

Even comply provisions failure to matter, statute subject orders and judgments in its nature renders jurisdictional viola being authority without and in void as excess of tion thereof conceded in may court. It be jurisdiction of the this case that general jurisdiction subject injunctions. district court has injunctions to issue a labor But its limited acted provisions authority The court without when § requirements failed to observe and this rendered temporary injunction void. v. Blackstock, Seamster Va. 36, 37, S. E. A. the court S. R. said: “And though a may court obtain rightfully, yet its decrees may be void, because, progress cause, it has exceeded juris its diction.” In Anthony v. Va. Kasey, 83 E. 340, S.

A.5 S. R. court 277, the said: “Now it is essential to the validity judgment or decree, that court rendering it shall ju have subject risdiction of both the matter and parties. But this is not all, for both of these essentials exist may and still void, decree because the character of the judgment was not such as the had the power to render, or because the mode of procedure employed by the court was such as it might not lawfully adopt. subject On this Mr. Justice Field has this pertinent ob servation: ‘Though the court may possess jurisdiction of a cause, subject matter and of the parties, it is still limited in of modes and in procedure the extent and character of its judg- * * departure A procedure ments. established modes of McVeigh, will often render the void.’ Windsor v. of [274], 282, granting ed. The an absolute 283 [23 914].” U. inter in the instance under a that an requiring divorce first statute may locutory absolute divorce be decree be entered that an year one its face as granted upon being thereafter void issued of statute. Grannis v. 146 Cal. Suрerior Court, violation the P. A. S. R. 23. question jurisdic The decision of court below on the of subject is void and collateral attack. In this tion case the want complaint of the record. appears face The alleges a labor within meaning ap That statute. issued pearing, only could be by making necessary of fact in with findings compliance terms of the court to comply statute. Failure rendered statute its acts jurisdiction. They without coram non This judice. were is well settled decisions of by the this court which cited have been supra. In In Mousseau, re Will 30 Minn. 14 N. W. 887, 888, “But, we said: whatever be the rank or dignity court, upon when it appears given face of proceeding that it has acted it no authority act, where had the unauthorized action and “If necessarily void,” authority, court ‘act without judgments regarded are They orders as nullities.' void are not ” able, simply void,’ citing Peirsol, but Elliott v. Pet. L.7. ed. 164, and other cases. question

There was no preliminary to decide except one of law. only question Judge before Peterson upon the hearing for temporary injunction granting was whether or not the a labor complaint dispute. disclosed This question raised a law, not one fact. The decision was to be made upon him files and records before and not oral upon testimony. In the case, supra, was held that Mosseau is to de- petition the face which cided the proceedings City Minneapolis, Behrens based. 199 Minn. 363, are we said: “The complaint, 271 N. W. answer, reply, whether the proceeding determine pleadings, one which

623 * * v. In rel. Kaiser should *.” State ex issue, “The Mo. 289 is said: 372, 379, 898, 901, 316 S. W. Miller, of said jurisdiction judge question however, respondent To of law.” facts, not rest contested and is one court, does Ct. 22, Fair Kohler & Co. 228 U. S. 33 S. same effect: v. Die S. the & Karpen Geneva Furniture Co. v. S. Bros. 410, 716; Mfg. 57 ed. v. 123 788, 1295; Cotton, 35 S. Ct. 59 L. ed. Turner 254, 238 U. S. Clough, W. & v. 182 40, 415; Ry. Ark. 184 S. Lake Shore M. S. Co. E. E. 12 975, 905; Poindexter, 104 N. 105 N. Boone v. 178, Ind. (Miss.) 640; Jersey City Gardner, Eq. 622; & M. v. 33 N. J. Smedes v. Co. 65 N. Y. Brg. 847; Piekelko Lake View Misc. 119 20 In Novelty Co., 416; Gaw v. Glassboro Glass Ohio Cir. Ct. re 99 Cal. P. 37 A. Ransome- James, 60; Estate of 33 S. R. Martenstein, 167 Cal. P. Crummey 1060; Co. v. 139 v. Young (Tenn.) 335; Ridgely Bennett, 12 v. 13 Lea Young, (Tenn.) 210; Lea Titus, (Tenn.) 727; 9 Heisk. Shankle v. Ingram, v. Kindell 133 N. C. 45 S. E. 135 578; Young Hamilton, Ga. 69 E.S. Ann. Cas. (N.S.) 1057, 1912A, 31 L.R.A. Fish 144; Eagle Cliff 70 P. ing v. McGowan, 766; Dippold Co. Or. v. Cathlamet P. Timber Co. Or. Page, (U. S.)

In 18 Wall. 21 L. Galpin 350, 366, ed. 959, Mr. jurisdiction Justice Field said that the cause or subject matter generally appear “will of the action the character of the will determined judgment, and be the law creating the court or general powers.” He stated prescribing where .that affirmatively appears lacking, judgment be the is void upon its attack will lie, face and collateral “were not this so it wоuld collaterally to attack possible judgment never be of a superior although might a want be court, apparent upon its attack would always answer to the face; be that, notwith- averment, or the the evidence standing necessary facts to sup- are presumed.” judgment port of the court below involved

If the the ascertainment question of fact its decision would fact, of a conclusive in this But case the facts attack. are set forth in on collateral conclusively are established as a matter of complaint record. testimony The mere fact that affidavits and oral received does were not warrant the court com- disregarding allegations In Missouri R. plaint. Norwood, 249, 253, Pacific Co. v. 283 U. S. 51 S. L. ed. Ct. Mr. Justice Butler said: “But the affidavits filed for a support application injunction may not be in determining considered whether com- plaint states facts sufficient to ground relief,” constitute citing numerous cases.

In the decisions of this court cited supra, principle was ap as a matter of plied every course. one of the cases cited, rendering attacked collaterally had first passed jurisdiction. of its own Notwithstanding such de cision that it jurisdiction, had this court did not hesitate to pro nounce аnd judgment proceedings the entire void, because such jurisdiction ‍‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌‍did not a matter question exist as of law. This has York in many been before the courts New cases. In Matter of Doey v. Clarence P. Howland Co. 224 N. Y. 30, 38, 120 N. E. 53, 55, the court as follows: general stated rule “The rule is that lack judgment to render or determination be assert at and time, only exception ed of which I am aware question depends upon where of fact. If that be liti determined, question then the gated by is settled the judgment, final and conclusive which becomes unless set by aside a direct appeal attack or reversed on therefrom. (O’Donoghue Boies, v. N. Y. 53 E. v. 537; Ferguson 159 N. Crawford, 70 N. Y. 253, In R. 589.) 26 Am. all other cases where there is a lack of author subject determine ity to hear and matter of the an controversy, nullity is a will be so declared adjudication at the instance of thereby. (Matter of Will of affected party 136 Walker, N. Y. 20, York 633.)” N. E. The other New cases are in 32 accord. Nan All Russian 237 N. Government, Omsk Y. 150, kivel v. 142 N. E. Stedman, 230 Y. 130 N. Hanna v. N. E. 569; 566; Matter Co. v. 269 N. Y. Fawcett, Mail S. S. Baltimore 199 N. E. 628, v. 1068; O’Donoghue Boies, L. R. 159 N. A. Y. 87, 104 53 N. E. rel. Lower Donovan, ex v. 135 N. Y. People 76, 31 N. 537; E. 1009 ; 224 Div. App. 529, 231 N. Y. Sleicher, S. 538; Sleicher Goldberg 192 N. Y. Levine, App. 124; Ream, Div. S. Davidson v. 1037; N. Y. Matter of Div. Y. McGarren, App. S. 98 N. S. been question many Supreme 415. This has decided times of the United States. v. Northern F. M. Vallеly Court & Ins. 348, 41 Ct. question Co. 254 U. S. ed. considered. In that case the court not only answered the argu in majority ments made but also opinion distinguished the States cases cited therein. An United insurance had company been bankrupt adjudged involuntary proceedings, although the bank act that ruptcy provided company insurance should not be sub ject involuntary It bankruptcy. appeared from the face of the petition bankruptcy alleged that the bankrupt was an insurance It was contended company. that the could only be raised error, writ or appeal, prompt motion to vacate and that exemption company not bankruptcy go did juris to the subject diction the court over matter. It was claimed there, here, as that the valid exercise of does not depend upon the correctness the decision and if the court reached a conclusion, wrong void, merely but erroneous, appeal be corrected motion to vacate, and that long everyone. it binding stood was In answer to these conten said there tions, plausibility the propositions, taken but U. S. generality, their “Courts are [254 constituted by 353] authority they go beyond cannot power delegated to them. If beyond authority, act they certainly contravention judgments their and orders it, regarded are as nullities. They voidable, simply but void, are and this prior even to reversal. 1 Peirsol, 328, Elliott v. Pet. 340 7 L. [344], ed. 164; Old Wayne Mutual Life Association v. 204 McDonough, U. 8,S. 27 S. Ct. 236, 51 L. ed. 345.” Des Distinguishing Moines Navigation Co. v. Iowa 3 552, Co. 12 U. S. 8 S. Ct. 217, Homestead 31 L. ed. 202, the court “In Des S. Moines Navigation said U. v. Co. 354]: Iowa [254 123 U. 8 Ct. 552, 217, Co. S. S. 31 L. Homestead ed. 202, there came also the effect of prior adjudication considered up as de allegation diversity pendent citizenship, and the rul v. Sullivant Wheat. 192, in McCormick 6 L. ing [10 ed. 300] 626 is the courts

affirmed. immediate comment these cases' The necessarily subject-matter their jurisdiction had .of juris which that (diversity citizenship) fact pass upon the subject-matter in of the suit depended given diction case. The the law which explicit from them provision was not withheld power.” sufficiently distinguishes This was their sole warrant in (C. A.) 60 316. In the Ry. St. Louis & F. Co. C. F. Foltz v. S. withheld is jurisdiction stant issue case, its There except provisions. upon compliance from the courts major in cited contra distinguishable this case from those ity opinion. corpus has arisen numerous cases which habeas

This United has out of the Court States to Supreme been issued contempt. While habeas corpus regarded review convictions Court the United States as an Supreme exercise jurisdiction, regarded involving the review is collateral appellate judgments Nielsen, Petitioner, and orders reviewed. attack Craig 33 L. 672, 118; Hecht, 131 S. 9 S. Ct. ed. v. 263 U. S. 176, U. Rodman v. 103, 293; Pothier, Ct. 68 L. ed. 264 255, 44 S. U. S. 68 Knewel v. 268 360, 759; Egan, 44 L. ed. U. 399, 442, S. Ct. S. L. ex rel. Vajtauer 69 ed. United States v. 522, 1036; 45 Ct. S. 103, Ct. 71 302, 273 U. S. 47 S. L. Immigration, 560; Commr. of ed. 293 55 S. 79 Warden, S. Ct. L. ed. McNally Hill, U. many has been asserted times that In cases the rule erroneous these is itself void and judg court as decision such assumed in the exercise of is void ment rendered 717; 100 U. S. 25 ed. Siebold, Ex re parte Ayers, also. 31 L. ed. In re 216; Sawyer, S. 124 8 Ct. U. 123 U. S. S. 135 402; Mills, In re U. S. 482, 31 L. ed. 10 Ct. S. Ct. 200, 8 S. Fisk, Ex U. 5 S. 107; parte L. ed. Ct. 762, 34 Furnace Co. Morrisey Shenango (C. C. A.) 1117; F. L. ed. (D. C.) F. 83. Kozlowski parte Ex 798; ex People of Illinois rel. Carlstrom v. supreme E. N. page at Ill. said: Shurtleff, 355 “A has case is always over by a court finding irreconcilable with the facts finding disclosed when come

627’ by In the record. such a case the impeaches itself, record as it did People in the v. Kelly, supra case Ill. 186 N. E. [352 188]. It has never been held where the record itself shows that the evi jurisdiction dence of which upon insufficient, the court acted was jurisdiction that its in favor finding was conclusive. [Citation.] It say would absurd to that such finding was conclusive when record very shows that the itself finding was void for want jurisdiction. The return in this case and the answer [Citation.] and traverse showed a lack of jurisdiction. According to an un line of broken authorities the respondent powerless was rendered proceed further except to dismiss the petition, the order of was null and void. discharge Respondent jurisdiction was without the order of to enter discharge.” Two of the leading holding cases injunctions and subject void to collateral attack because it ap injunctions peared related equitable to matters not of cognizance Dickey are 78 Ill. Reed, 261, 273-274,and Walton 61 Ill. 201. Develing, To the same effect, Goudy v. Hall, 30 Ill. 109. ex rel. Macon State Creamery Mix, Co. v. Mo. App. 426, 438, (2d) 290, 7 S. W. 295, the court said: gives “It no sanction to the view that the court may determine erroneously juris matters of appearing diction the face of the record, doing so confer upon jurisdiction. itself The court not erroneously determine petition states cause action against a defendant re siding county in the where the suit is brought in order to confer jurisdiction the person itself of a codefendant residing and process in county. another Hor may served the court confer itself of such codefendant erroneously decid ing that the cause of action stated in petition against such co- And county defendant accrued where suit is brought.” (Mo. Bank see, Mercantile v. Becker Sup.) 40 W. (2d) 1227; v. Wright, A. R. Jones Ohio Cir. 649; Ct. Ray v. Ray, (2d)W. 142. A 530, 50 S. 330 Mo. cannot confer by erroneоusly that it deciding jurisdiction. on itself has The de is void. itself vision cited in majority opinion,

The authorities which the de- question turns on a cision of fact, has dis- of the United States are Court point. Supreme majority case United States cited tinguished principal question the In cited the decision of opinion. the other cases disputed not evidence, appearing and upon conflicting fact was is to be decided being law, one of it question record. The here respect in an of a court this erroneous decision record, the mentioned. reasons is to collateral attack the subject Tuthill 98 Minn. 107 Giddings, like State ex rel. v. Cases 118 Minn. 136 N. W. Grannis, v. N. W. Ordean in far from conflict this 1915B, 1149, béing L. R. A. Giddings In rel. Tuthill it. State ex dissent, actually support granted that relief out the was pointed Minn. the court 104], [98 court.” That dis jurisdiction the authority “within the In v. Grannis the pointed Ordean tinguishes it from this case. the court was within the out the order involved that it stated Minn. void, but further and therefore not [118 127]: have that, though no a court the “There is doubt if makes subject-matter parties, jurisdiction, and the it exceeds had jurisdiction in case it to make, a or order which judgment court thereby recognized This the judgment such or order is void.” applied case and which was the rule applies which cited supra. Minnesota cases numerоus Judge if it be conceded Peterson’s It is suggested was not void and that defendant had a erroneous, was it decision This is appeal. entirely review on be remedy by speedy complete not bound to party appeal a is take side because the an appeal and because from a judg or order judgment from a void not juris does cure the order void for want ment oc ground first is to be respect defect. With ob dictional are void judgments appeal. without an that such orders and served M. Ins. Co. 254 41 F. & U. S. Ct. Vallely v. Northern In they void, said are the court voidable, L. ed. 116, arising case This was a under the bank to reversal.” prior “even right of speedy appeal. there If which under ruptcy act valid, right speedy appeal is criminal advanced argument has abolished doctrine of courts collateral federal cases judgments on void Answering attack and orders. argu similar negative Kamp, ment Kamp (N. Y.) 212, 215, Sickels court of said: “One is not bound to appeals appeal order or but resist judgment, it and assert its invalidity void An appeal all times.” would not cure the at defect or make the valid. 15 R. C. p. 846, 320, the aptly rule is § void judgment “The affirmance of stated: also void as are all proceedings judgment by to enforce the affirmed execution and sale, judgment and where a jurisdic void because the court had no tion, an affirmance of will appeal not cure defect or life to give judgment.” the invalid See Ball v. Tolman, A. 135 Cal. S. R. 110. One of the reasons requiring the findings under prevent the improvident issuance of in junctions. history legislation, especially testimony thq congressional before committees, demonstrates that right speedy appeal entirely is unrelated to jurisdictional provision 7. recognized It is well that an appeal § grant an order injunction ing temporary is practically no remedy at all. To mitigate the results of improvidently granting temporary injunc speedy is appeal provided. tions Commenting upon this subject, Frankfurter and Greene in The Labor Injunction, at pp. 224-225, grave in state: “Another defect actual practice governing labor * * is in injunctions appeals. dilatoriness is of Time in If essence a strike. modification or injunction reversal of an is any value, it to have must come before energies of a strike been spent.” have jurisdictional requirements of the statute were intended to beyond it nullify court to

place by it interpreta- If below tion. the court can its own decision hold that a labor own involved, by ipse dixit, is not it has investеd itself If jurisdiction which the withholds. law collateral attack of denied, process void orders is nullification has begun as far To hold that present this law is concerned. controversy as is work of is nullification such dispute, a labor was inflicted act and similar state laws. See Clayton Frankfurter 630 35 1295; L. Rev. 50 Harv.

Greene, Injunction, p. 176; The Labor L. Pa. L. 771. 1320; Mich. 84 Univ. of Rev. Rev. injunctional an cannot be based on Contempt proceedings matter It cannot be said as a jurisdiction.

order void for want no order of of law that the order is an order. Hence purported not a Doing prohibits court was violated. what a void order rule general “It is a The rule has been thus stated: contempt. of an can for a the disobedience punish contempt that court L. 17. This jurisdiction.” p. 505, without 6 R. C. order made § Holland v. by this court. In State ex rel. applied rule has been N. W. it was held Miesen, 19, 1134, 513, 98 Minn. 106 N. W. 108 punish void contempt exceeding a. sentence for constructive Burnquist v. District by statute; ment State ex rel. provided 141 168 N. A. L. R. it was held that Court, 1, 634, 1476, Minn. W. 3 injunction proceedings could not be based on a contempt of the court to issue State it, void want Minn. Court, rel. Evans v. District 136 N. ex W. could not void contempt proceedings was held that be based juvenile order of injunctional prohibiting marriage sustaining authoritiеs this rule are numerous and are child. The of the text 13 C. J. 17. An support p. 13, cited note § adjudication guilty contempt disregarding defendant which void for is void. 14 R. C. L. p. 2. This has been many note considered times Court of the United States. In Supreme Sawyer, re 402; L. ed. Mills, 8 S. Ct. re 135 U. U. S. S. Ex 113 U. 107; parte Fisk, Ct. ed. S. 5 C. 724, S. S. Ex 100 U. 1117; parte Siebold, 28 L. ed. 25 L. ed. 717. Mr. 718], In Ex Fisk U. S. Justice Miller parte “When, said: [113 States undertakes, by a court the United its however, process of refusing man for to comply contempt, punish an order authority make, had no the order itself, which that court being void, and the order jurisdiction, punishing without the con “If p. And at 725: equally void.” law governing tempt to make or gave it continue Court this examina Circuit it then could not it, fact forbade enforce the but order.” tion, In Morrisey Shenango (C. 280 F. A.) Furnace Co. C.

injunction enjoining Village officers, and its Buhl, Minnesota, from spending village four-year funds over held period was not equity jurisdiction to be within the federal courts ‍‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌‍and hence void A injunction injunc- was its face. violation of the punishable tion was held not as a contempt injunction because the void itself was face. pass validity

Our function is to and the of relator’s acts. The legality temporary injunction void want of the court to issue it. Being void, was entitled to obedience and did not receive it. The relator acted But within rights. his he acted his peril. at The conviction for should be set aside and relator contempt discharged.

Case Details

Case Name: Reid v. Independent Union of All Workers

Court Name: Supreme Court of Minnesota

Date Published: Sep 24, 1937

Citation: 275 N.W. 300

Docket Number: No. 31,192.

Court Abbreviation: Minn.