Arnold v. National Union of Marine Cooks & Stewards Ass'n, No. 32180
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Washington |
| Writing for the Court | FINLEY |
| Citation | 42 Wn.2d 648,257 P.2d 629 |
| Parties | ARNOLD et al. v. NATIONAL UNION OF MARINE COOKS & STEWARDS ASS'N. |
| Docket Number | No. 32180 |
| Decision Date | 26 May 1953 |
Page 648
v.
NATIONAL UNION OF MARINE COOKS & STEWARDS ASS'N.
Walthew, Gershon, Oseran & Warner, John Caughlan and Siegfried Hesse, all of Seattle, for appellant.
Bassett, Geisness & Vance, Seattle, for respondents.
FINLEY, Justice.
The National Union of Marine Cooks & Stewards Association, a voluntary association,[257 P.2d 630] is appealing from a judgment of the superior court of King county, holding the union in contempt of court for refusal to comply with orders of the court entered in connection with supplemental
Page 649
proceedings instituted in aid of a judgment in the sum of $475,000, previously rendered against the union. The significant facts in this case are as follows:The respondents, as plaintiffs in the trial court, recovered a judgment totaling $475,000, on September 5, 1951, against the union in the King county superior court, and that law suit will be referred to hereinafter as the main action. There appears to be no dispute that jurisdiction of the union, or voluntary association, was properly acquired in the main action by service of summons and complaint upon the union's business agent in Seattle. It should be pointed out here that the union has appealed from the judgment entered in the main action, which appeal is currently being held in abeyance by an order of the supreme court dated May 17, 1952, pending a disposition of the instant case--that is, the appeal of the union from the order holding the union in contempt of court. The judgment in the main action never having been superseded, the respondents instituted supplemental proceedings on October 19, 1951, to discover assets for the purpose of satisfying the judgment previously rendered in the main action. Upon the basis of affidavit and motion, the trial court issued an order directing the union, its Seattle agent, Charles Nichols, and its acting Seattle agent, Robert Ward, to appear in court for examination, and to produce certain described documents. The persons named in the order were restrained from transferring or secreting union assets. This order and a comparable supplemental order were served on Charles Nichols and Robert Ward. Service on the union was attempted by leaving additional certified copies of the orders with the named individuals, Ward and Nichols. The latter subsequently appeared and testified. They failed to produce the documents specified in the orders. Apparently, the union did not appear.
On December 11, 1951, the trial court ordered the union, Charles Nichols, and Robert Ward to show cause why they should not be held in contempt for failure to produce the specified documents. At a hearing on the return date of
Page 650
the show cause order, January 7, 1952, Nichols and Ward were absolved of the charge of contempt because they were not shown to be the official custodians of the documents. The union was adjudged in contempt of court for its failure to comply with the previous orders served upon it, and was given until January 14, 1952, to purge itself of the contempt. The union appeared specially through its attorneys and moved to quash the purported service of the order requiring it to appear for examination in the supplemental proceeding. This motion to quash service was denied. At a hearing on February 15, 1952, on an order to show cause why a receiver for the union should not be appointed, the court entered findings and conclusions of law as follows: That counsel for the union admitted jurisdiction had been acquired properly in the main action; that each of the orders to show cause was duly and regularly served upon the union by timely delivery of a certified copy thereof to an agent of the association in King county, Washington, by a person duly authorized to make such service; that the association had assets of $298,000 in government bonds which could be used to satisfy the judgment in the main action; that the bonds were held by the union in its financial offices in San Francisco.Based on its findings, the trial court appointed a receiver and directed the union to deliver the bonds to the receiver. A certified copy of this order to transfer the bonds to the receiver was delivered to Hugh Bryson, president of the union, in Honolulu. Similarly, a copy of the order was served upon Charles Nichols in Seattle. Upon failure of the union to deliver the bonds, an order was issued, requiring the union to show cause why it should...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United Factory Outlet, Inc. v. Jay's Stores, Inc.
...v. Vecera, 338 Ill.App. 523, 530--531, 88 N.E.2d 116; Arnold v. National Union of Marine Cooks & Stewards Assn., 42 Wash.2d 648, 653--654, 257 P.2d 629. Cf. Oil Workers Intl. Union, C.I.O. v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County, 103 Cal.App.2d 512, 568--572, 230 P.2d 71 (involving crimina......
-
Diluzio v. United Elec., Radio and Mach. Workers of America, Local 274
...rev'd, 373 U.S. 690, 83 S.Ct. 1423, 10 L.Ed.2d 638 (1963); Arnold v. National Union of Marine Cooks & Stewards Ass'n, 42 Wash.2d 648, 257 P.2d 629 (1953), aff'd, 348 U.S. 37, 75 S.Ct. 92, 99 L.Ed. 46 (1954). See also Busby v. Electric Utils. Employees Union, 147 F.2d 865 (D.C.Cir.1945). As ......
-
National Union of Marine Cooks and Stewards v. Arnold, No. 19
...of the order of contempt, by complying with the trial court's order requiring delivery of the bonds to the receiver.' 42 Wash.2d 648, 654, 257 P.2d 629, 633. May 27, 1953—In the Supreme Court, respondents filed an affidavit showing that petitioner's disbursements, in 1952, had been $633,391......
-
Kitsap County v. Kitsap Rifle and Revolver Club, 48781-1-II
...the supplemental order is a continuation of the trial court's original order. See Arnold v. Nat'l Union of Marine Cooks & Stewards Ass 'n, 42 Wn.2d 648, 652, 257 P.2d 629 (1953) ("[Supplemental proceedings are not a new and independent action but are merely a continuation of the original or......
-
United Factory Outlet, Inc. v. Jay's Stores, Inc.
...v. Vecera, 338 Ill.App. 523, 530--531, 88 N.E.2d 116; Arnold v. National Union of Marine Cooks & Stewards Assn., 42 Wash.2d 648, 653--654, 257 P.2d 629. Cf. Oil Workers Intl. Union, C.I.O. v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County, 103 Cal.App.2d 512, 568--572, 230 P.2d 71 (involving crimina......
-
Diluzio v. United Elec., Radio and Mach. Workers of America, Local 274
...rev'd, 373 U.S. 690, 83 S.Ct. 1423, 10 L.Ed.2d 638 (1963); Arnold v. National Union of Marine Cooks & Stewards Ass'n, 42 Wash.2d 648, 257 P.2d 629 (1953), aff'd, 348 U.S. 37, 75 S.Ct. 92, 99 L.Ed. 46 (1954). See also Busby v. Electric Utils. Employees Union, 147 F.2d 865 (D.C.Cir.1945). As ......
-
National Union of Marine Cooks and Stewards v. Arnold, No. 19
...of the order of contempt, by complying with the trial court's order requiring delivery of the bonds to the receiver.' 42 Wash.2d 648, 654, 257 P.2d 629, 633. May 27, 1953—In the Supreme Court, respondents filed an affidavit showing that petitioner's disbursements, in 1952, had been $633,391......
-
Kitsap County v. Kitsap Rifle and Revolver Club, 48781-1-II
...the supplemental order is a continuation of the trial court's original order. See Arnold v. Nat'l Union of Marine Cooks & Stewards Ass 'n, 42 Wn.2d 648, 652, 257 P.2d 629 (1953) ("[Supplemental proceedings are not a new and independent action but are merely a continuation of the original or......