Arthur v. Oakes

Citation63 F. 310
Decision Date01 October 1894
Docket Number169.
PartiesARTHUR et al. v. OAKES et al.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Quarles Spence & Quarles, for appellants.

George P. Miller, for appellees.

Before HARLAN, Circuit Judge, WOODS, Circuit Judge, and BUNN District judge.

HARLAN Circuit Justice.

The questions before us relate to the power of a court of equity, having custody by receivers of the railroad and other property of a corporation, to enjoin combinations, conspiracies, or acts upon the part of the receivers employes and their associates in labor organizations, which, if not restrained, would do irreparable mischief to such property, and prevent the receivers from discharging the duties imposed by law upon the corporation.

The original bill was filed on behalf of stockholders and creditors of the Northern Pacific Railroad Company, a corporation credited by an act of congress, and had for its general object the administration under the direction of the court of the entire railroad system, lands, and assets of that corporation, and the enforcement of the respective rights, liens, and equities of its preferred and common stockholders, bondholders, and creditors.

The railroad company having filed its answer, receivers were appointed, with authority to take immediate possession of its railroads and other property, and to exercise its authority and franchises, conduct its business and occupation as a carrier of passengers and freight, discharge the public duties obligatory upon it, or upon any of the corporations whose lines of road were in its possession, preserve the property in proper condition and repair so as to be safely and advantageously used, protect the title and possession of the same, and employ such persons and make such payments and disbursements as were needful. The receivers were also authorized to manage all other property of the company at their discretion, and in such manner as in their judgment would produce the most satisfactory results consistent with the discharge of the public duties imposed on them, and to fix the compensation of officers, attorneys, managers, superintendents, agents, and employes in their service. It was further ordered that an injunction issue against the defendant and all claiming to act by, through, or under it, and against all other persons, to restrain them from interfering with the receivers in taking possession of and managing the property.

Subsequently the Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, as trustee for the holders of bonds and collateral trust indentures, filed an original bill in the same court against the Northern Pacific Railroad Company, the individual plaintiffs in the first suit, and the receivers. The relief asked was that the plaintiff, as trustee under the mortgages named in the bill, be placed in possession of the mortgaged premises, or that receivers of the rights, franchises, and property of the railroad company be appointed with authority to operate its railroads and carry on its business under the protection of the court; that the liens created by the several mortgages be ascertained and declared; and that the mortgaged property, in certain contingencies, be sold, and the proceeds applied according to the rights of parties.

The railroad company having appeared in that suit, an order was entered appointing the same persons receivers who were appointed in the first suit, and the two suits were consolidated, to proceed together under the title of the Farmers' Loan & Trust Company v. Northern Pacific Railroad Company, etc.

By a writ of injunction dated December 19, 1893, the officers, agents, and employes of the receivers, including engineers, firemen, trainmen, train dispatchers, telegraphers, conductors, switchmen, and all persons, associations, and combinations, voluntary or otherwise, whether in the service of the receivers or not, were enjoined--

From disabling, or rendering in any wise unfit for convenient and immediate use, any engine, cares, or other property of the receivers;

From interfering in any manner with the possession of locomotives, cars, or property of the receivers, or in their custody;

From interfering in any manner, by force, threats, or otherwise, with men who desire to continue in the service of the receivers, or with men employed by them to take the place of those who quit;

From interfering with or obstructing in any wise the operation of the railroad, or any portion thereof, or the running of engines or trains thereon as usual;

From any interference with the telegraph lines of the receivers along the lines of railways operated by them, or the operation thereof;

From combining and conspiring to quit, with or without notice, the service of said receivers, with the object and intent of crippling the property in their custody or embarrassing the operation of said railroad, and from so quitting the service of the said receivers, with or without notice, as to cripple the property or prevent or hinder the operation of said railroad; and, generally,

From interfering with the officers and agents of the receivers or their employes in any manner, by actual violence or by intimidation, threats, or otherwise, in the full and complete possession and management of the railroad and of all the property thereunto pertaining, and from interfering with any and all property in the custody of the receivers, whether belonging to them or to shippers or other owners, and from interfering with, intimidating, or otherwise injuring or inconveniencing or delaying the passengers being transported or about to be transported over the railway of the receivers, or any portion thereof, or by interfering in any manner, by actual violence or threat, and otherwise preventing or endeavoring to prevent the shipment of freight or the transportation of the mails of the United States over the road operated by the receivers, until the further order of this court.

This injunction was based on a petition of the receivers, urging, in view of the general depression in the business of transportation, the necessity of reducing expenses, and representing to the court that many employes were threatening that if their compensation were diminished as indicated in a revised schedule of wages which the receivers had adopted, to take effect January 1, 1894, they would prevent or obstruct the operation of the railroads in the hands of the receivers. Upon the filing of the petition, and before the writ of injunction was issued, the court adjudged and decreed that the receivers--

'Be, and they are hereby, authorized and instructed to put in operation and maintain upon the Northern Pacific Railroad the revised schedule and rates, more specifically in said petition described, and ordered by said receivers to take effect January 1, A.D. 1894, and for that purpose, and to that end, their action in abrogating and revoking the schedules in force on said railroad at the time of their appointment as such receivers, August 15, 1893, is hereby confirmed.'

A second writ of injunction was issued December 22, 1893. It was based on a supplemental petition of the receivers, and was in all respects like the former one, except that it contained, in addition, a clause by which the persons and associations to whom it was addressed were enjoined--

From combining or conspiring together, or with others, either jointly or severally, or as committees, or as officers of any so-called labor organization, with the design or purpose of causing a strike upon the lines of railroad operated by said receivers, and from ordering, recommending, approving, or advising others to quit the service of the receivers of the Northern Pacific Railroad Company on January 1, 1894, or at any other time, and from ordering, recommending, advising, or approving, by communication or instruction or otherwise, the employes of said receivers, or any of them, or of said Northern Pacific Railroad Company, to join in a strike on said January 1, 1894, or at any other time, and from ordering, recommending, or advising any committee or committees, or class or classes of employes of said receivers, to strike or join in a strike, on January 1, 1894, or at any other time, until the further order of this court.

The appellants, as chief executive officers, respectively, of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, the Order of Railway Conductors, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen, the Order of Railway Telegraphers, the Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen, and the Switchmen's Mutual Aid Association, appeared in court on behalf of themselves and their respective organizations and associations, as well as on behalf of such employes of the receivers as were members of those associations and organizations, or of some of them, and moved that the court modify the orders and injunctions of December 19, 1893, and December 22, 1893--

(1) By striking from both writs of injunction these words: 'And from combining and conspiring to quit, with or without notice, the service of said receivers, with the object and intent of crippling the property in their custody or embarrassing the operation of said railroad, and from so quitting the service of said receivers, with or without notice, as to cripple the property or prevent or hinder the operation of said railroad.'

(2) By striking from the writ of injunction of December 22, 1893, the above clause or paragraph relating specially to 'strikes,' which was not in the writ issued December 19, 1893.

The motion was in writing, and upon its face purported to be based on the petition and supplemental petition filed by the receivers, on the orders of the court made December 19 and 22, 1893, respectively, and on the above writs of injunction. Beyond the facts set...

To continue reading

Request your trial
67 cases
  • Allis-Chalmers Co. v. Iron Molders' Union No. 125
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin
    • December 11, 1906
    ... ... 545; Casey v. Cinn. Typ ... Union (C.C.) 45 F. 135, 12 L.R.A. 193; Thomas v ... Cinn. etc., Ry. Co. (C.C.) 62 F. 803; Arthur v ... Oakes, 63 F. 310, 11 C.C.A. 209, 25 L.R.A. 414; ... Loewe v. California State Federation (C.C.) 139 F ... 71; Hawarden v. Youghiogheny ... ...
  • Hotel & Restaurant Emp. Intern. Alliance v. Greenwood
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • April 24, 1947
    ...denied 236 Ala. 577, 183 So. 886; Iron Molders' Union v. Allis-Chalmers Co., 7 Cir., 166 F. 45, 49, 20 L.R.A.,N.S., 315; Arthur v. Oaks, 7 Cir., 63 F. 310, 25 L.R.A. 414; New Jersey Painting Co. v. Local No. 26, 96 632, 126 A. 399, 47 A.L.R. 384, 390; Carpenters' Union v. Citizens' Committe......
  • Dayton Co. v. Carpet, Linoleum and Resilient Fl. D., Etc.
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • June 24, 1949
    ...injunction.16 That the courts will not compel an individual to work for an employer against his will is pointed out in Arthur v. Oakes, 7 Cir., 63 F. 310, 25 L.R.A. 414; National Labor Relations Board v. Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co., 304 U.S. 333, 58 S.Ct. 904, 82 L.Ed. 1381. The courts eve......
  • Franklin Music Co. v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • January 9, 1980
    ...220 Ill. 355, 376-77, 77 N.E. 176, 184 (1906).20 Hopkins v. Oxley Stave Co., 83 F. 912, 920 (8th Cir. 1897); see also Arthur v. Oakes, 63 F. 310, 322 (7th Cir. 1894).21 Plaintiff's Requested Jury Instructions tied the conspiracy interrogatory to the torts. The trial court read to the jury a......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Specific Performance of Enlistment Contracts
    • United States
    • Military Law Review No. 205, September 2010
    • September 1, 2010
    ...RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS § 367 (1981) (current through August 2009); MODERN LAW OF CONTRACTS § 13:17 (2009). 129 Arthur v. Oaks, 63 F. 310, 317 (7th Cir. 1894). The case explains, 2010] ENFORCEMENT OF ENLISTMENT CONTRACTS 171 “the lesee of Her Majesty’s Theatre” 131 in England, ent......
  • Enforcing the Unenforceable: Monetary Remedies for Breaches of Nonmonetary Provisions in Sex Abuse Chapter 11 Plans.
    • United States
    • American Bankruptcy Law Journal Vol. 96 No. 3, September 2022
    • September 22, 2022
    ...damages nor specific performance was available, and, for additional reasons, restitution also was not available). (105) Arthur v. Oakes, 63 F. 310, 317-18 (7th Cir. 1894) (Harlan, J.). But see Nathan B. Oman, Specific Performance and the Thirteenth Amendment, 93 Minn. L. Rev. 2020, 2077-78 ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT