Fish v. Huddell, 5148.
Decision Date | 29 June 1931 |
Docket Number | No. 5148.,5148. |
Citation | 60 App. DC 263,51 F.2d 319 |
Parties | FISH v. HUDDELL et al. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Thomas C. Bradley, P. H. Marshall, and Harry S. Barger, all of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
James S. Easby-Smith and F. W. Hill, Jr., both of Washington, D. C., for appellees.
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB, HITZ, and GRONER, Associate Justices.
This is an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia dismissing on motion an amended bill for injunctive relief.
Appellant here, plaintiff there, elected to stand on his bill and brought this appeal.
In April, 1929, plaintiff was a member and business agent of local union No. 77, in this city, of the International Union of Operating Engineers.
About that time defendant Arthur M. Huddell, as general president of the International Union, suspended him as business agent, and for one year from membership in his local union.
By this action plaintiff claims he lost the usual rights and privileges incident to union membership, together with his salary of $75.50 a week and the use of an automobile as business agent.
The bill contains many other allegations of interference with the affairs of plaintiff and his local union by Huddell and the other defendants under his orders and direction.
All of these acts are alleged to have been unlawful, and injunctive relief against them is sought.
The motion to dismiss was based on the failure of the bill to show that plaintiff had exhausted his remedies within the association before resorting to a court of equity.
And on this motion the trial court dismissed the bill with leave to amend.
Article 4, § 2, of the constitution of the International Union, provides:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Green v. Obergfell
...U.S. 266, 274, 46 S.Ct. 263, 70 L.Ed. 578. 26 Stoll v. Gottlieb, 305 U.S. 165, 171, 59 S.Ct. 134, 83 L.Ed. 104. 27 Fish v. Huddell, 60 App.D.C. 263, 264, 51 F.2d 319, 320: "It is well settled that with such management and administration the courts will not ordinarily interfere." Gonzalez v.......
-
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, ETC. v. Hoffa
...150-151 (1955); Mount v. Radford Trust Co., 93 Va. 427, 25 S.E. 244, 245 (1896). See F.R.Civ.P. 23(b). Compare Fish v. Huddell, 60 App.D.C. 263, 264, 51 F.2d 319, 320 (1931); Durkin v. Murray, 90 F.Supp. 367, 368 (D.D.C. 26 F.R.Civ.P. 9(c). 27 See East River Construction Corp. v. District o......
-
Samuelson v. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen
... ... cumbersome. Crisler v. Crum (Neb.) 213 N.W. 366; ... Mulcahy v. Huddell, (Mass.) 172 N.E. 796; Fish v ... Huddell, (Ct. of Appeals, D.C.) 51 F.2d 319 ... ...
-
State ex rel. Supreme Temple of Pythian Sisters v. Cook
...Angeles Fireman's Relief Association (Calif.), 71 P.2d 328; Franklin v. Sovereign Camp, W. O. W. (Okla.), 291 P. 513, l. c. 517; Fish v. Huddell, 51 F.2d 319, l. c. 320; Campbell v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen, etc. (Va.), 181 S.E. 444, l. c. 445-6; State ex rel. Buckner v. Landwehr (......