16 Cal.2d 405, 16408, Fortenbury v. Superior Court

• Docket Nº: 16408
• Citation: 16 Cal.2d 405, 106 P.2d 411
• Opinion Judge: [10] Edmonds
• Party Name: Fortenbury v. Superior Court
• Attorney: [7] Gallagher, Wirin & Johnson for Petitioner. [8] Robert W. Kenny and Morris E. Cohn, as Amici Curiae, on Behalf of Petitioner. [9] J. H. O'Connor, County Counsel, and Douglas De Coster, Deputy County Counsel, for Respondent.
• Case Date: October 14, 1940
• Court: Supreme Court of California

Page 405

16 Cal.2d 405

106 P.2d 411

CARL D. FORTENBURY, Petitioner,

v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent.

S. F. No. 16408.

Supreme Court of California

October 14, 1940

In Bank.

Page 406

COUNSEL

Gallagher, Wirin &amp Johnson for Petitioner. Robert W. Kenny and Morris E. Cohn, as Amici Curiae, on Behalf of Petitioner. J. H. O'Connor, County Counsel, and Douglas De Coster, Deputy County Counsel, for Respondent

OPINION

[106 P.2d 412] EDMONDS, J.

Upon application of the petitioner, this court issued a writ of certiorari for the purpose of reviewing a judgment in which he was held guilty of contempt of court for violating a temporary restraining order prohibiting picketing in connection with a labor dispute. Admittedly, he continued picketing after service of the order upon him. But he contends that as any restraint upon peaceful picketing is a violation of constitutional right, he committed no contempt of court.

There is no dispute concerning the facts upon which the restraining order was issued. They are fully alleged in the petition and by stipulation are admitted to be true. Briefly summarized they are as follows:

For some time before the present controversy arose, Runnymede Poultry Farms and Poultry Workers Union Local No. 17, of which the petitioner is a member, were engaged in a labor dispute. The differences concerned wages and the right to bargain collectively. Finally, the employees struck, and, as it appeared to them, in order to conduct the strike

Page 407

most effectively, the union boycotted the products of the employer. In carrying out this purpose the petitioner and other members of the union picketed the premises of the Sunset Poultry Market, one of the employer's customers, although there was no controversy between the owners of the market and the union other than was involved in the sale of the Runnymede products.

Thereupon, the owners of the market brought an action to enjoin the petitioner and others from continuing this picketing. The court issued a temporary restraining order which prohibited the petitioner and others from stationing or maintaining any picket or pickets in front of or in the immediate vicinity of the plaintiffs' establishment until the further order of the court. The order was served upon the petitioner while he was walking to and fro in front of the market carrying a placard with the inscription, "This market unfair to organized...