Benjamin v. Foidl

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
• Citation: 379 Pa. 540,109 A.2d 300
• Parties: Yetta BENJAMIN et al., Appellants, v. John FOIDL, President, et al.; Local Union 420 et al.
• Decision Date: 15 November 1954

Page 300

109 A.2d 300 379 Pa. 540 Yetta BENJAMIN et al., Appellants,
v.
John FOIDL, President, et al.; Local Union 420 et al. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Nov. 15, 1954.
Rehearing Denied Dec. 13, 1954.

[379 Pa. 541] Peter P. Zion and Leonard A. Green, Philadelphia, for appellants.

Myron Jacoby, Jacoby & Maxmin, Homer H. Hewitt, 3rd, Louis H. Wilderman, Richard H. Markowitz, Paula R. Markowitz, Joseph Rappaport and Rappaport & Lagakos, Philadelphia, for appellees.

Geoffrey J. Cuniff, Philadelphia, for York Corporation & Daniel J. Keating Co.

Candor, Youngman & Gibson and John C. Youngman, Williamsport, David H. Kinley, Philadelphia, for E. Keeler Co.

[379 Pa. 540] Before STERN, C. J., and STEARNE, JONES, BELL, CHIDSEY, MUSMANNO and ARNOLD, JJ.

[379 Pa. 541] ARNOLD, Justice.

Plaintiffs brought this bill in equity against the defendants and charged that by means of conspiracy they sought to and did deprive them of employment. The court below granted a preliminary injunction, and after hearing on its continuance sustained the objections of the defendants and dismissed the complaint. Plaintiffs appealed.

The plaintiffs are holders of certificates of convenience from the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission and the Interstate Commerce Commission, and are engaged in the business known as rigging, hoisting, hauling, loading and unloading and installing in place and placing on foundations all forms of heavy and intricate machinery and other equipment. The complaint charged, inter alia, that the defendants entered into a conspiracy to deprive the plaintiffs of employment by means not now necessary to set forth. It suffices to say that the allegations of the bill in equity and the [379 Pa. 542] proof of the plaintiffs showed a common law conspiracy. The court below sustained the preliminary objections and dismissed the bill on the theory that since union labor was involved (two labor unions being cited as a part of the defendants' conspiracy), the resort of the plaintiffs was to the National Labor Relations Board, although it was not shown at the hearing on continuance of the injunction that the plaintiffs were engaged in interstate commerce.

The principal support of the court was the case of Garner v. Teamsters, Chauffeurs and Helpers, Local Union No. 776, 373 Pa.

Page 301

19, 94 A.2d 893, affirmed, 346 U.S. 485, 74 S.Ct. 161.

But that case does not govern here. That was a case brought to enjoin picketing which constituted an unfair...