Brown v. Coumanis
| Decision Date | 12 April 1943 |
| Docket Number | No. 10453.,10453. |
| Citation | 135 F.2d 163 |
| Parties | BROWN et al. v. COUMANIS et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Bentley G. Byrnes and Bernard J. Fonseca, both of New Orleans, La., for appellants.
Ralph G. Holberg, Jr., and Wm. G. Caffey, both of Mobile, Ala., for appellees.
Before SIBLEY, HUTCHESON, and McCORD, Circuit Judges.
George Nicolas Coumanis and Paul Nicolas Coumanis petitioned the District Court for an injunction against two local labor unions and against certain individuals, setting up that there existed a labor dispute within the Norris-La Guardia Act, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 101-115, 47 Stat. 70-73, in which certain unlawful and fraudulent conduct had been resorted to by the defendants, and violence was threatened, causing irreparable injury to petitioners' restaurant business in Mobile, Alabama. After hearing testimony in open court, but without notice to the defendants, the Court made findings in accordance with the Act, and issued a restraining order, setting a hearing a week later. At the hearing the defendants, besides answering to the merits, pleaded that the court had no jurisdiction over the case, because it did not involve a federal question, nor interstate commerce, nor diversity of citizenship. The petitioners amended to allege in general terms an obstruction by defendants' acts of the full flow of commerce between the States in commodities used in their business. The court again heard evidence, expressly held that it had jurisdiction, again made the findings required by the Act, and made an injunction practically the same as the restraining order. This appeal followed.
The federal jurisdiction of the court is the controlling question. And that depends on the allegations made in the petition, as has long been settled. An amount in excess of $3,000 is alleged to be involved. Diversity of citizenship is not alleged. The only ground of jurisdiction claimed below and here is that the controversy arises under the laws of the United States. The controversy, as the petition states it, is: Petitioners are engaged in the restaurant business, in peace and harmony with their employees, who are not members of any labor union, nor desiring to be, though they have been notified that they are free to become members of any labor organization they desire, and have never been hindered by petitioners, who stand ready to deal with any representative or union they may select. The defendants, though not representing petitioners' employees or any one of them, demanded that petitioners sign a closed shop contract with them, which petitioners, after enquiry among their employees, refused to do. The defendants thereupon picketed their place of business, making fraudulently false statements about petitioners' attitude towards labor and the wages paid their employees, interfering with customers, preventing the bringing in of beverages and food, and thus breaking up petitioners' business. It was also alleged that petitioners' establishment is designated for the furnishing of meals to the United States Army Recruits under a contract duly made with agents acting for and in behalf of the United States Army, to the knowledge of defendants. That some of petitioners' supplies come in interstate commerce is inferentially alleged in the amendment. The only express mention in the petition of a law of the United States is, that after stating the amount involved it is alleged: "This bill of complaint is filed under federal legislation known as the Norris-La Guardia Act and cited in Title 29 U.S.C.A. Sections 101-115 inclusive * * * and complainants aver that they are involved in a labor dispute with respondents pursuant to said Act."
The amendment consists only of a legal conclusion, that if injunction does not issue interstate commerce in commodities used by petitioners will be obstructed. It does not purport to allege a breach of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1-7, 15 note. Nor does the allegation of interference with an army contract appear to us to state a case arising under any law relating to the Army. We are referred in argument to no such law, and none occurs to us. The pleader is evidently relying on the Norris-La Guardia Act as the law of the United States under which the controversy arises. Upon this Act the argument here...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. United Mine Workers of America Same v. Lewis, John United Mine Workers of America v. United States Lewis, John v. Same United Mine Workers of America v. Same
...of the United States. These objections of the defendants prevailed on appeal, and the injunction was set aside. Brown v. Coumanis, 5 Cir., 1943, 135 F.2d 163, 146 A.L.R. 1241. But in Carter, a companion case, violations of the temporary restraining order were held punishable as criminal con......
-
Sandsberry v. Gulf, C. & SF Ry. Co.
...v. American Federation of Musicians, D.C., 47 F.Supp. 304, affirmed 318 U.S. 741, 63 S.Ct. 665, 87 L.Ed. 1120; Brown v. Coumanis, 5 Cir., 135 F. 2d 163, 146 A.L.R. 1241; East Texas Motor Freight Lines v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 5 Cir., 163 F.2d 10; J. J. Newberry Co. v. Reta......
-
BROWN & SHARPE MFG. v. ALL INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS, ETC.
...in actions involving labor disputes. It does not itself confer jurisdiction over labor disputes to federal courts. Brown v. Coumanis, 135 F.2d 163, 164 (5th Cir. 1943). 3 28 U.S.C. § 1337 alone does not provide federal question jurisdiction. Litigants ordinarily must utilize the enforcement......
-
Aladdin Industries, Inc. v. Associated Transport, Inc.
...177 N.E. 629, 80 A.L.R. 1028; Moore v. Chesapeake & O. R. Co., 291 U.S. 205, 210, 54 S.Ct. 402, 78 L.Ed. 755, 759; Brown v. Coumanis, 5 Cir., 135 F.2d 163, 146 A.L.R. 1241. The averments of the original bill (practically the same in each case) made a case where a shipper was entitled to an ......