Gasaway v. Borderland Coal Corp.
Decision Date | 15 December 1921 |
Docket Number | 3059. |
Citation | 278 F. 56 |
Parties | GASAWAY et al. v. BORDERLAND COAL CORPORATION. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
William A. Glasgow, Jr., of Philadelphia, Pa., for appellants.
Z. T Vinson, of Huntington, W. Va., and A. M. Belcher, of Charleston, W. Va., for appellee.
Before BAKER, ALSCHULER, and PAGE, Circuit Judges.
The general nature of the case is stated in the opinion filed by the District Judge:
organization derived from the 'check-off' system, as above stated, is sent there to aid, abet, and assist those on the ground, actively engaged in the unlawful attempt to unionize the nonunion mines in West Virginia and destroy competition, as above stated.
'The evidence clearly shows that the mine operators know-- at least they know now-- that this money thus contributed by them through the 'check-off' system is used in this unlawful manner. It therefore follows that the use of such money should be enjoined, and the carrying on of the 'check-off' system as a means for raising it should likewise be enjoined.
counsel would be granted, upon condition that the status quo be preserved in the meantime. Mr. John L. Lewis, the president of the United Mine Workers of America, being in the courtroom at the time, was asked by the court if he would agree to preserve the status quo-- that is, cease efforts to unionize these mines in West Virginia until the court would have time to more thoroughly investigate the matter-- the court stating that it would be entirely satisfied with Mr. Lewis' assurance to that effect. Mr. Lewis promptly declined to agree to desist, thus creating the emergency for the issuing of a temporary injunction, and compelling the court to act without further opportunity to investigate the important questions involved.
'This court cannot police West Virginia, nor does it hold that the United Mine Workers' Union is itself an unlawful organization, nor will it in any way attempt to curtail its lawful activities; but it can enjoin the unlawful activities of the parties here in Indiana, who are here now under the jurisdiction of this court, and a temporary injunction to that effect will be issued.'
And thereupon the District Court entered the following decree:
'The plaintiff, by counsel, offered in evidence and read to the court, certain affidavits numbered from 1 to 41, and 77 to 79, inclusive, which were filed and made a part of the record, and also asked that the bill of complaint be read as an affidavit, which was done, all in support of its motion for said temporary injunction; and the defendants also offered in evidence, in resisting said motion, certain affidavits, numbered 42 to 75, inclusive, which were read, filed, and made a part of the record.
'Thereupon the defendants, by counsel, moved the court to be allowed 30 days within which to file their answers, and the court stated that, in his opinion, the evidence in the case warranted the granting of a temporary injunction in accordance with the prayer of the bill of complaint and in accordance with the notice given, at least in part, but that the case is of such importance that the request for 30 days within which to file answers would be granted, and the question of granting said temporary injunction would not be passed upon until after the filing of said answers, and after further consideration provided John L. Lewis, president of the United Mine Workers of America, who was present in court, would state in open court, or promise the court, that his said organization, the United Mine Workers of America, would cease all effort to organize the nonunion coal fields of Mingo county, W. Va., and Pike county, Ky., pending the consideration by the court of the question whether or not said temporary injunction should be awarded; the court further stating to said Lewis, and to counsel for the defendants, that if said Lewis declined to give the assurance suggested, notwithstanding the fact that counsel for the defendant members and officials of said United Mine Workers of America have asked for 30 days' time within...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Twin City Power Co. v. Savannah River Elec. Co.
...75 S.C. 221, 55 S.E. 337; Boyd v. Trexler, 84 S.C. 51, 65 S.E. 936; Kelly v. Tiner, 86 S.C. 160, 68 S.E. 465." See, also, Gasaway v. Coal Corp. (C. C. A.) 278 F. 56; R. Co. v. Tel. Co. (C. C. A.) 252 F. American Mercury v. Kiely (C. C. A.) 19 F. (2d) 295; Barker v. Brotherhood (C. C. A.) 15......
-
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION, ETC., v. Red Jacket CC & C. Co.
...do we think that, by agreeing to the "check-off," they became parties to the conspiracy of defendants. As said in Gasaway v. Borderland Coal Co. (C. C. A. 7th) 278 F. 56, 65: "So far as the contracts themselves and this record disclose, the check-off is the voluntary assignment by the emplo......
-
United Food & Commercial Workers Int'l Union v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
...Tex. Tech Univ. Health Sci. Ctr. v. Rao, 105 S.W.3d 763, 770 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2003, pet. dism'd); accord Gasaway v. Borderland Coal Corp., 278 F. 56, 64-65 (7th Cir. 1921); Doe v. Phillips, 259 S.W.3d 34, 38 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008); cf. People v. Toomey, 203 Cal. Rptr. 642, 655 (Cal. Ct. App......
-
Bittner v. West Virginia-Pittsburgh Coal Co.
...253 F. 638, 165 C. C. A. 264; National Picture Theatres v. Foundation Film Corp. (C. C. A. 2d Cir.) 266 F. 208; Gasaway v. Borderland Corp. (C. C. A. 7th Cir.) 278 F. 56. Defendants criticize the scope of the injunction, contending that its effect is to forbid the publishing and circulating......