194 F.2d 770 (3rd Cir. 1952), 10524, Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. United Elec. Radio and Mach. Workers of America
|Citation:||194 F.2d 770|
|Party Name:||WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORP. v. UNITED ELECTRICAL RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA et al.|
|Case Date:||February 21, 1952|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit|
Argued Jan. 8, 1952.
David Scribner, New York City (Donner & Kinoy, New York City, Gross & Blumberg and Morton Stavis, Newark, N.J., Frank J. Donner, Arthur Kinoy, and Marshall Perlin, New York City, on the brief), for appellants.
Bertram Diamond, Washington, D.C. (Benjamin C. Signal, Washington, D.C., Wilner & Wilner, Pittsburgh, Pa., on the brief), for International Union of Electrical Radio and Machine Workers et al.
John C. Bane, Jr., Pittsburgh, Pa. (Donald B. Heard, Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay, all of Pittsburgh, Pa., on the brief), for Westinghouse Electric Corp.
Before GOODRICH and HASTIE, Circuit Judges, and BURNS, District Judge.
HASTIE, Circuit Judge.
In this case a defendant is asking us to review the normally discretionary action of a court of first instance in granting a plaintiff's motion to discontinue and dismiss his suit before trial.
The plaintiff, Westinghouse Electric Corporation, a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place of business in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and plants in other states, instituted this suit as an action of strict interpleader under Section 1335 of Title 28, United States Code. It deposited in the registry of the district court about $270, 000 representing union dues collected pursuant to a labor relations contract from its employees in its plants in several states. It impleaded United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers of America and subordinate locals, hereinafter UE, and a rival international union, International Union of Electrical Radio and Machine Workers, (CIO), and subordinate locals, hereinafter IUE, as adverse claimants of the fund. After answers had been filed, Westinghouse moved to dismiss its suit without prejudice. With defendant IUE consenting and defendant UE objecting, the court granted the plaintiff's motion. The UE group has appealed.
The appellants urge that the disposition of plaintiff's motion is affected by Section 1404 of Title 28 of the United States Code which confers upon district courts broad discretion to transfer actions to a more convenient forum. But plaintiff did not invoke the power of the court under this section and we find that...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP