20 N.E.2d 969 (Ind. 1939), 27168, Wiest v. Dirks

Docket Nº:27168.
Citation:20 N.E.2d 969, 215 Ind. 568
Party Name:WIEST et al. v. DIRKS.
Case Date:May 16, 1939
Court:Supreme Court of Indiana

Page 969

20 N.E.2d 969 (Ind. 1939)

215 Ind. 568

WIEST et al.



No. 27168.

Supreme Court of Indiana

May 16, 1939

Appeal from Superior Court, Marion County.

[215 Ind. 569] Weiss, Seligman & Born, of Indianapolis, for appellants.

Fae Patrick and Garrett W. Olds, both of Indianapolis, for appellee.


This is an appeal from an interlocutory judgment enjoining the appellants from picketing the retail grocery and food store of the appellee. The petition for injunction was heard upon the verified complaint and affidavits and upon the testimony of witnesses, with full opportunity for examination and cross-examination.

In appeals of this character the court is not concerned with the pleadings, and will consider only the evidence which tends to support the judgment. It is not necessary that such a case shall be made as would entitle the plaintiff to relief at all events at the final hearing. It is enough if the evidence shows the case to be a proper one for investigation in a court of equity, and that the facts are such that the thing sought to be enjoined should be prevented until the final determination of the case. Tuf-Tread Corporation et al. v. Kilborn, 1930, 202 Ind. 154, 172 N.E. 353.

There is no controversy concerning the facts material to a determination of the appeal. The appellee operates a retail

Page 970

grocery and food store in connection with which he purchases from a jobber, and sells at retail, milk and other dairy commodities processed by the East End Dairy Company. The East End Dairy Company has more than fifty employees, four of whom are members of the appellant union. Representatives of the union demanded that the company sign a contract, by the terms of which it would agree to employ only members of the union, and would require, as a condition for continuing employment, that all of its employees join the union. This the company refused to do. The appellant [215 Ind. 570] Wiest and another representative of the union demanded that the appellee discontinue handling the products of the company. The appellee made inquiry and found that the company was paying wages in excess of the union scale, and that its controversy with the union involved a 'closed shop.' He also ascertained that there were no 'closed shop' dairy products produced in the Indianapolis milk shed. He told the appellants that he would not discontinue handling the products of the East End Dairy Company, and he continued to handle them. The appellants caused appellee's place of business to be picketed. The picketing was peaceful. The pickets carried a sign upon which was printed:

'Please buy Union Dairy Products Only

'This Store sells milk produced

in an unfair Dairy

'East End...

To continue reading