Franklin Union, No. 4 v. People

• Decision Date: 05 April 1906
• Citation: Franklin Union, No. 4 v. People, 220 Ill. 355, 77 N.E. 176 (Ill. 1906)
• Parties: FRANKLIN UNION, NO. 4, v. PEOPLE. SMITH v. SAME. KITCHEL v. SAME. MUCHER v. SAME (two cases).
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

220 Ill. 355

77 N.E. 176

FRANKLIN UNION, NO. 4,

v.PEOPLE.

SMITH

v.SAME.

KITCHEL

v.SAME.

MUCHER

v.SAME (two cases).

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Feb. 21, 1906.

Rehearing Denied April 5, 1906.

Appeal from Appellate Court, First District.

Bill for injunction by the Chicago Typothetae against Franklin Union No. 4. An injunction was awarded, and the union and Charles Smith, Fred Kitchel, and John Mucher were separately adjudged guilty of contempt for a violation thereof, and sued out writs of error from the Appellate Court, where the judgments were affirmed, and they appeal. Affirmed.

Boggs and Scott, JJ., dissenting.

John A. Bloomingston, for appellants.

Tenney, McConnell, Harding & Wilkerson (Horace Kert Tenney and James H. Wilkerson, of counsel), for appellee.

HAND, J.

This was a bill in chancery filed in the superior court of Cook county on October 9, 1903, by the Chicago Typothetae, a voluntary association established for the purpose of advancing and improving the binding and printing business engaged in by its members in the city of Chicago, and for the purpose of employing skilled mechanics whose services might be required by its various members, for and on behalf of R. R. Donnelly & Sons Company, W. F. Hall Printing Company, Marsh & Grant Company, Faithorn Printing Company, Rogers & Co., S. D. Childs & Co., Jefferson Theater Program Company, Shea, Smith & Co., and A. R. Barnes & Co., membersof said association, against Franklin Union No. 4, its officers and members, praying that an injunction issue restraining said Franklin Union No. 4, its officers and members, from interfering with the business of the members of said association and their employés and persons seeking employment from them. The bill averred that Franklin Union No. 4, its officers and members, had entered into a conspiracy between themselves and with other unknown persons to prevent the members of said association from carrying on their business, and to effect the object of said conspiracy said Franklin Union No. 4, its officers and members, had inaugurated a strike, and by a systematic course of force and violence, threats, intimidation, and picketing, sought to prevent, and were preventing, persons in the employ of the members of said association from longer continuing in their employment and other persons from entering their employment, the effect of which was to injure and destroy the business of the members of said association. The bill, in scope and character and the relief asked, is substantially the same as the bill filed in O'Brien v. People, 216 Ill. 354, 75 N. E. 108,where many of the questions raised on these appeals are considered and determined adversely to the contention of these appellants.

The defendants were notified of the filing of the bill and the application for an injunction, and on the 10th day of October, 1903, the court issued an injunction restraining Franklin Union No. 4, its officers, and the other defendants, among other things, from in any manner interfering with, hindering, obstructing, or stopping any of the business of complainants, or their agents or employés, in the operation of their business, or from entering upon the grounds or places where the employés of complainants were at work, for the purpose of interfering with, hindering, or obstructing complainants' business in any manner, and also from compelling, or attempting to compel, by threats or intimidation, force or violence, or by unlawful persuasion, any of the employés of complainants to refuse or fail to do their work or discharge their duties as such employés, or by like methods inducing employés to leave the service of complainants, or by like means preventing persons from freely entering into the service and employment of complainants and continuing therein, and also by like unlawful means compelling and inducing, or attempting to compel or induce, the doing of any act in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy, or to interfere with the complainants or their officers or employés in the free, uninterrupted, and unhindered control and direction of their business, or from aiding or assisting any others in so doing, and from congregating upon or about the sidewalks, streets, alleys, or approaches adjoining or adjacent to the premises occupied by complainants, for the purpose of intimidating the employés of complainants, or preventing them, or any of them, from rendering their services and discharging their duties to complainants, and also from, either singly or in combination with others, collecting in and about the approaches to the factories and places of business of complainants for the purpose of picketing or patrolling or guarding the streets, avenues, gates, and approaches and places of business of the complainants, for the purpose of intimidating, threatening, and coercing, or unlawfully persuading, any of the complainants' employés, or of preventing persons seeking employment with them from going to and from the places of business of complainants.

In the bill, as originally framed, the members of the Chicago Typothetae were named, but not as complainants; the averment of the bill being that it was filed by the Chicago Typothetae for an on behalf of its members, naming them. The members each, however, signed the following statement in writing, immediately following the verification of the bill: ‘We, the undersigned, members of complainant association, hereto affix our seals and consent and request that action be brought in court by the filing of the foregoing bill of complaint.’ On the 18th of October, by leave of court and withoutprejudice to the injunction, which was expressly extended to cover the amended and supplemental bill, an amended and supplemental bill was filed, in which all of the members of said association named in the original bill, and the C. H. Morgan Company, a member of the association, were formally named as complainants.

The immediate cause of the strike inaugurated by Franklin Union No. 4, and its officers and members, was that a contract had been entered into between the Chicago Typothetae, on behalf of it members, and the members of Franklin Union No. 4, regulating the hours, wages, and terms of employment between the different members of the Chicago Typothetae and the members of said union. That contract Franklin Union No. 4, by resolution, on September 27, 1903, annulled. The Chicago Typothetae and its members thereupon refused to further recognize Franklin Union No. 4 or deal with its members as members of said union. Thereafter, and upon the 5th day of October, 1903, a strike was inaugurated by Franklin Union No. 4 against the members of the Chicago Typothetae. On October 16th a petition was filed in said cause, which was amended on October 21st, representing to the court that John Mucher, Fred Kitchel, and Charles Smith had been guilty of a violation of the injunction issued on October 10th. A rule was entered to show cause, the respondents were notified and appeared and filed answers, and upon a hearing they were adjudged guilty of contempt of court, and each was sentenced to imprisonment in the county jail of Cook county for a period of 30 days and to pay a fine of $100. On November 2d a second petition was filed against John Mucher, representing to the court that he had, subsequent to his first conviction, again violated the injunction of October 10th, and a rule was entered to show cause. He was notified and filed an answer, and a hearing was had, and he was adjudged to be in contempt of court and was sentenced to imprisonment in the county jail of Cook county for 30 days. On November 20, 1903, a petition was filed against Franklin Union No. 4 and Charles F. Woerner and John M. Shea, respectively president and secretary of Franklin Union No. 4, representing that Franklin Union No. 4 and its said officers had repeatedly violated said injunction of October 10th. The petition was subsequently dismissed as to Woerner and Shea. Franklin Union No. 4 filed an answer and a hearing was had, and the union was adjudged to be in contempt of court and a fine of $1,000 was imposed upon Franklin Union No. 4. Several appeals or writs of error were prosecuted or sued out by said respondents to review said judgments of conviction, to the Appellate Court for the First District, where the cases were heard together, and the several judgments of the superior court were affirmed, and several appeals have been prosecuted to this court by said respondents from the judgments of affirmance of the Appellate Court, and upon motion the cases have been submitted in this court upon the same briefs and will be considered together and disposed of in one opinion.

A complete record has been filed in the case of Franklin Union No. 4. A short record, containing a copy of the order adjudging the respondent guilty of contempt of court and imposing sentence upon him, and a copy of the appeal bond, are the only matters contained in the record filed in each of the other cases. Numerous questions have been raised in the brief filed by appellants, some of which are material to a final disposition of the questions raised upon the records filed in the several cases, and several of which, in the manner in which the records have been framed in the cases other than that of Franklin Union No. 4, are not open to review in this court. As the case of Franklin Union No. 4 involves the main points relied upon as grounds of reversal, and there is a complete record filed in that case, as a matter of convenience we will first consider that case, and then dispose of such questions as are not involved in the decision of that case but which are urged as grounds of reversal in the appeals of the individual appellants. In those cases, as the records contain no certificate of evidence, no questions of fact are involved.

The first contention made is that the court was without jurisdiction, by reason of the want of proper parties, to enter the order of October...