254 U.S. 77 (1920), 69, Niles-Bement-Pond Company v. Iron Moulders Union Local No. 68
|Docket Nº:||No. 69|
|Citation:||254 U.S. 77, 41 S.Ct. 39, 65 L.Ed. 145|
|Party Name:||Niles-Bement-Pond Company v. Iron Moulders Union Local No. 68|
|Case Date:||November 08, 1920|
|Court:||United States Supreme Court|
Argued October 22, 1920
CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
In a suit by a corporation, a citizen of one state, against another corporation, of another state, and it former employees and their labor unions wherein the plaintiff, praying no relief against the defendant corporation, sought to enjoin the other defendants from molesting the workmen employed by that corporation and thereby delaying or preventing the performance of contracts with the government for war supplies entered into by the plaintiff and by it turned over to the defendant corporation for manufacture and delivery, and wherein it appeared that the defendant corporation was subject to the control of the plaintiff through majority stock ownership and through the identity of some of their officers and directors,
Held: (1) that the plaintiff's right, if any, was a right to protect the contract between the defendant corporation and its workmen from the interference complained of, that the defendant corporation was an indispensable party to the controversy, and that, having no interest in conflict with the plaintiff's, it must be aligned as a plaintiff in determining whether the district court had jurisdiction through diverse citizenship (p. 80); (2) that certain allegations of the bill that the government contracts had priority under the National Defense Act, and involved interstate commerce, were insufficient to render the suit one arising under the laws of the United States. P. 82.
258 F. 408 affirmed.
The case is stated in the opinion.
CLARKE, J., lead opinion
MR. JUSTICE CLARKE delivered the opinion of the Court.
The controversy involved in this suit originated in a strike by employees of the defendant the Niles Tool Works Company, hereinafter designated the Tool Company, and the sole question presented for decision is one of jurisdiction.
The petitioner, a corporation of New Jersey, filed its bill in the District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, making the Tool Company, an Ohio corporation, several local labor unions, and many of the striking employees of the Tool Company (in the bill and hereinafter designated "former employees") parties defendant, it being averred that all of the defendants were citizens of Ohio and residents of the Southern district. The jurisdiction of the court was thus invoked on...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP