Alden Bros. Co. v. Dunn
| Decision Date | 13 September 1928 |
| Citation | 162 N.E. 773,264 Mass. 355 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
| Parties | ALDEN BROS. CO. v. DUNN et al. W. F. NOBLE & SONS CO. v. SAME. CHILDS BROS. CO. v. SAME. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Marcus Morton, Judge.
Separate suits by the Alden Bros. Company, by the W. F. Noble & Sons Company, and by the Childs Bros. Company against James Dunn and others, as officers and members of Local 380 of the Milk Wagon Drivers' and Creamery Workers' Union of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Stablemen, and Helpers, a voluntary unincorporated association. From the decrees, defendants appeal. Affirmed.H. R. Donaghue and P. J. Donaghue, both of Boston, for appellants.
A. J. Aldridge, of Boston, for appellees.
The several plaintiffs are Massachusetts corporations engaged in the sale and delivery of milk and creamery products at wholesale and retail. Their capital stock is owned almost wholly by the New England Creamery Products Company, a Massachusetts corporation, and their business is carried on as departments of its business. Their presidents and treasurers comprise six of the eight directors of the Creamery Products Company. The defendants are officers and members of Local 380 of the Milk Wagon Drivers' and Creamery Workers' Union of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Stablemen, and Helpers, a voluntary unincorporated association.
[1] The bills were filed on July 26, August 3, and August 7, 1925, and seek injunctive relief against injurious action directed against the plaintiffs in connection with an alleged strike by employees of the Alden Bros. Company. Neither bill was authorized by formal vote of the directors of the plaintiff company. The bills of the Alden and Childs companies were signed by the president, and that of the Noble company by the treasurer, in the names of the respective companies. Their contents were known and approved by the presidents and treasurers of the companies and by seven of the eight directors of the New England Creamery Products Company before filing. No director has ever objected to them. There is nothing in the contention of the defendants that the bills lack authorization, and, therefore, should be dismissed. Ratification of the action of the responsible officers by the corporation may well be inferred; evidence of a vote by directors or stockholders is not imperative. See Knight v. Whitmore Manufacturing Co., 248 Mass. 531, 143 N. E. 495;H. C. Girard Co. v. Lamoureux, 227 Mass. 277, 116 N. E. 572.
[2][3][4] We find no reversible error in the admission or rejection of evidence. No motion to exclude the testimony admitted de bene was made subsequent to its admission. The master had power to admit testimony, which, if not strictly competent at the moment of admission, would become competent if other evidence was introduced later. The order in which the evidence was presented was subject to his discretion. He was not bound, at a later time and of his own motion, to exclude it, if the evidence expected to render it competent was not presented or was insufficient. Not infrequently, a party, who has objected to the admission of evidence, desires it to remain in the case when once admitted. Unless the objection is renewed and motion made that the evidence be stricken out, the party has no good exception to the original ruling admitting it. Haskell v. Cunningham, 221 Mass. 49, 53, 108 N. E. 915;Doon v. Felton, 203 Mass. 267, 271, 89 N. E. 539;Commonwealth v. Johnson, 199 Mass. 55, 59, 85 N. E. 188. There was evidence sufficient to justify the master's inference that Mrs. Conaty's visitor was acting for the union.
[5][6] The testimony with regard to damages was clearly admissible. It was relevant and material, if evidence of injury could be received under the pleadings. There can be no doubt that evidence was admissible to show that the conduct complained of caused injury to the plaintiffs as alleged. Whether it could legitimately sustain a decree for damages is a different question; but if admissible for any purpose, the ruling allowing it was right. The exclusion of evidence of the statements and conduct of Cummings with regard to the agreement made by the Whiting Milk Company, and of Cummings' contract with the union was not error. Cummings was not a plaintiff nor an agent of the plaintiffs. His statements and conduct were inadmissible against them. The existence and terms of an agreement of Cummings and the Whitings with the union were not evidence that Alden Bros. Company had ever agreed to sign such an agreement. Rockport Granite Co. v. Plum Island Beach Co., 248 Mass. 290, 295, 142 N. E. 834.
[7] The questions put to Alden, Sr., and to Blodgett concerning the price paid by the Creamery Products Company for stock of the Alden Bros. Company, and the number of shares of the former received for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. DeCotis
...contained a prayer for general relief, which would support any relief consistent with the nature of the case. Alden Bros. Co. v. Dunn, 264 Mass. 355, 363, 162 N.E. 773 (1928); Cooperstein v. Bogas, 317 Mass. 341, 58 N.E.2d 131 (1944). The bill not only alleges deceptive acts in connection w......
-
Commonwealth v. Sheppard
...85 N.E. 188;Doon v. Felton, 203 Mass. 267, 272, 89 N.E. 539;Haskell v. Cunningham, 221 Mass. 49, 53, 108 N.E. 915;Alden Bros. Co. v. Dunn, 264 Mass. 355, 362, 162 N.E. 773. In this connection, however, we deem it appropriate to say that we are of opinion that the evidence tended to show tha......
-
Lydia E. Pinkham Med. Co. v. Gove
...Sewing Machine Co., 133 Mass. 563;Trustees of Smith Charities v. Connolly, 157 Mass. 272, 275, 31 N.E. 1058;Alden Bros. Co. v. Dunn, 264 Mass. 355, 361, 162 N.E. 773;Goodenough's Adm'x v. Vermont-People's National Bank, 106 Vt. 5, 168 A. 914. The law of Maine seems to be no different from o......
-
George v. Coolidge Bank & Trust Co.
...of equity, once it has taken jurisdiction over a cause, may award damages which arise out of the wrongful conduct. Alden Bros. Co. v. Dunn, 264 Mass. 355, 363, 162 N.E. 773. See Kaplan v. Cavicchia, 107 N.J.Super. 201, 205--206, 257 A.2d In an action for damages for the conversion of stock,......