Hary v. United Electric Coal Co., 4645.
| Decision Date | 18 October 1934 |
| Docket Number | No. 4645.,4645. |
| Citation | 8 F. Supp. 655 |
| Parties | HARY et al. v. UNITED ELECTRIC COAL CO. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Illinois |
George W. Dowell, of DuQuoin, Ill., and C. C. Dreman, of Belleville, Ill., for plaintiff.
Wm. M. Acton, of Danville, and Baker & Lesemann, of East St. Louis, Ill., for defendant.
This is a suit by the plaintiffs under the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act (section 274d, Jud. Code, section 400, title 28 USCA).
By their bill of complaint plaintiffs set up the provisions of section 7(a) of the National Industrial Recovery Act (15 USCA § 707(a) and provisions of the Bituminous Coal Code of Fair Competition promulgated thereunder, and, alleging themselves to be employees and the chosen representatives of employees of the defendant, they claim under said act and code, as against the defendant, certain rights. They seek to have this court declare those rights. They also seek to have this court declare the effect of a certain so-called "Emergency Contract" between defendant and others, upon the rights of the plaintiffs in their relations to defendant under said act and code; to declare the validity or invalidity of the National Industrial Recovery Act and the Bituminous Coal Code of Fair Competition under the Constitution of the United States; to declare the jurisdiction and authority of the Bituminous Coal Labor Board, Division II, and the National Bituminous Coal Labor Board under said code in connection with a controversy as to who are the chosen representatives of defendant's employees; and to declare "whether or not further relief is or could be prayed under the National Bituminous Coal Labor Board, created under the Bituminous Coal Code above mentioned."
The foundation of the plaintiffs' suit is the rights they claim as against the defendant under section 7(a) of the National Industrial Recovery Act and the Bituminous Coal Code promulgated thereunder, and which rights they seek to have the court declare. Aside from said act and code, plaintiffs have no legally enforceable rights against the defendant either to be employed or to be dealt with through representatives of their own choosing.
Defendant has filed, under a limited appearance, its motion to dismiss the suit, basing said motion on numerous grounds. After consideration I have come to the conclusion that the court is compelled to sustain the motion to dismiss on the ground urged in said motion that the court is without jurisdiction to declare the rights of the plaintiffs under section 7(a) of the National Industrial Recovery Act and the Bituminous Coal Code promulgated thereunder in a private suit brought by the plaintiffs against the defendant. It thus becomes unnecessary to consider the other grounds set up in the motion to dismiss.
It seems clear that the Declaratory Judgment Act has not given this court jurisdiction over any controversy that would not be within its jurisdiction if affirmative relief were being sought. The act simply declares that this court has power "in cases of actual controversy * * * to declare rights and other legal relations of any interested party...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gully v. Interstate Natural Gas Co.
...Putnam v. Ickes, 64 App.D.C. 339, 78 F.(2d) 223; Automotive Equipment v. Trico Products Corp. (D.C.) 10 F.Supp. 736; Hary v. United Electric Coal Co. (D.C.) 8 F.Supp. 655; Black v. Little (D.C.) 8 F.Supp. 867; Ohio Casualty Co. v. Plummer (D.C.S.D. of Tex.) 13 F.Supp. 169; American Motorist......
- United States v. Pacific Forwarding Co.
-
Southern Pac. Co. v. McAdoo
...S.D.N.Y.) 10 F.Supp. 736, 738; Mississippi Power & Light Co. v. Jackson (D.C., S.D.Miss) 9 F.Supp. 564, 570; Hary v. United Electric Coal Co. (D.C., E.D.Ill.) 8 F.Supp. 655, 656. See, also, United States v. West Virginia, 295 U.S. 463, 475, 55 S.Ct. 789, 79 L.Ed. 1546. The mere fact that a ......
-
Western Casualty & Surety Co. v. Odom, 388.
...his theory is erroneous, but since the amount is more than $3,000, here, that question need not be discussed. See Hary et al. v. United Electric Coal Co. (D.C.) 8 F.Supp. 655. Other cases under this particular statute are, Gully v. Interstate Natural Gas Co. (C.C.A.) 82 F.2d 145; Travelers ......