Folsom v. Lewis

• Decision Date: 03 March 1911
• Citation: 208 Mass. 336,94 N.E. 316
• Parties: FOLSOM et al. v. LEWIS et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

208 Mass. 336

94 N.E. 316

FOLSOM et al. v. LEWIS et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

March 3, 1911

The injunction contained the following, amongst other provisions:

'And they are further enjoined from, in any way, directly or indirectly, continuing or proceeding with or causing to be continued or proceeded with the strike referred to in these proceedings for the purpose of compelling the plaintiffs to enter into any agreement with the union as such to employ none but union men, or for the purpose of directly or indirectly compelling the plaintiffs to unionize their shop or to run a closed shop or to employ none but union men and from directly or indirectly paying to any one any strike benefit in the furtherance of the strike referred to in these proceedings, and from paying or furnishing to any person or persons, partnership or corporation, any money property or other consideration to induce any person to leave or refrain from entering the employment of the plaintiffs in pursuance of the purposes enumerated.'

COUNSEL

Wm. M. Noble, for plaintiffs.

Daniel V. McIsaac, for defendants.

OPINION

KNOWLTON, C.J.

This is one of ten bills in equity, brought by different parties and heard together before a master, to obtain an injunction to restrain the defendants from calling or declaring any strike, and from proceeding with any strike already called, to 'unionize' the plaintiffs' shop, from inducing or persuading persons under contracts of employment to break them, and from conspiring or combining to prevent any person, by threats, picketing or intimidation, from entering or continuing in the employ of the plaintiffs, and to recover damages. Exceptions were taken by both parties to the report of the master, and, after a hearing, the plaintiffs' exceptions were sustained and the defendants' exceptions overruled. A decree for the plaintiffs was entered, and the defendants appealed.

There was a strike by the Boston Photo-Engraver' Labor Union against all the nonunion employers of photo-engravers in Boston. The master found 'that one of the objects of the strike was to compel the employers to recognize the union as such, to employ none but union men, or nonunion men provided they should join the union within 30 days, and after a certificate of the right to work until the time that they had joined the union, and that the strike was a strike for the closed shop.' He therefore found and ruled that the strike was not for a lawful object in these particulars.

The principal contention before us is that this finding is plainly wrong. The evidence upon this part of the case is not before us, except as the master has reported a large number of evidential facts, most, if not all, of which appear to be unquestioned, upon which his conclusion is founded. The only evidence that he was asked to report was that on the claim for damages.

The matters stated in the report amply justify, if they do not require,...