Hobbs v. Poteet
| Decision Date | 08 December 1947 |
| Docket Number | 40430 |
| Parties | Albert Hobbs and Earl Brownfield, a co-partnership, doing business as Hobbs-Brownfield, Ross Lightfoot, Pat Melton, Rector Owings and Kenneth Renick, Appellants, v. C. A. Poteet, R. O. Jackson, Harry Wright, Cecil Brown, Walter Gosney, Joe Kroll, Charles Edwards, John Baker, Albert Edwards, Charles Ritter and A. E. Williamson |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court; Hon. Ben Terte, Judge.
Reversed and remanded (with directions).
Gage Hillix, Shrader, Cowherd & Phelps for appellants.
(1) The judgment and order of the court is against the law and the evidence, the weight of the evidence and was for the wrong party, so as to constitute generally a failure of justice. Purcells v. Journeyman's Barbers, 133 S.W.2d 622; Hughes v. Kansas City Motion Picture, Local No. 170, 282 Mo. 304; Lohse Patent Door Co. v. Fuelle, 215 Mo. l.c. 447; Beck v. Teamsters Protective Union, 118 Mich. 497; My Maryland Lodge v. Adt, 100 Md. 249; State v. Glidden, 55 Conn. 49; Casey v. Cincinnati Typographical Union, 12 L.R.A 192; Barr v. Essex Trades Council, 53 N.J.Eq. 101; Carew v. Rutherford, 106 Mass. 1; Van Horn v Van Horn, 27 Vt. 318; Goldberg Co. v. Stablemen's Union, 149 Cal. l.c. 432; Gatzow v. Buening, 106 Wis. l.c. 12; Mademoiselle Reif v. Randau, 1 N.Y. (2d) 515; State ex rel. Hadley, Attorney General, v. Kansas City Live Stock Exchange & Traders Live Stock Exchange, 211 Mo. 181; United Electric Coal Companies v. Rice, 80 F.2d l.c. 9; Texas & N.O.R. Co. v. Brotherhood of Railway & Steamship Clerks, 33 F.2d l.c. 7; 32 C.J. 155. (2) The plaintiffs as a matter of law under the evidence were entitled to the relief prayed for in their petition. Lohse Patent Door Co. v. Fuelle, supra; Hughes v. Motion Picture Machine Operators, supra; Purcells v. Journeymen Barbers, supra; 32 C.J., sec. 209; Baldwin v. Escanaba Liquor Dealers Assn., 130 N.W. l.c. 220; Webb v. Cooks, Waiters & Waitresses Union No. 748, 205 S.W. l.c. 468; Carpenter's Union v. Citizens Committee to Enforce the Landis Award, 244 Ill.App. 540.
Joseph N. Miniace and Marcy K. Brown, Jr., for respondents.
(1) Plaintiffs' petition fails to state a cause of action. Root v. Anderson, 207 S.W. 255; Stephens v. Mound City Liverymen, etc., Assn., 246 S.W. 40; Shaltupsky v. Brown Shoe Co., 168 S.W.2d 1083; Co-operative Livestock Comm. Co. v. Browning, 168 S.W. 934. (2) A conspiracy must be proved; the evidence must be clear and convincing; neither conjecture nor surmise may be made the basis of such an action; circumstances as consistent with a lawful purpose as with an unlawful are insufficient; and the burden of proof is at all times on the person charging conspiracy. Wolfersberger v. Miller, 39 S.W.2d 758; Lampton Realty Co. v. Hoyt, 80 S.W.2d 249; Woosley v. Wells, 281 S.W. 695; Walsh v. Walsh, 226 S.W. 236; 12 C.J. 629, sec. 234. (3) The actions of defendants, members of the local union, constitute nothing more than legal means to effectuate a lawful act. Crescent Planing Mill Co. v. Mueller, 123 S.W.2d 193; Frank Schmidt Planing Mill Co. v. Mueller, 154 S.W.2d 614; Stapleton, International Representative, v. Mitchell, Attorney General, 60 F.Supp. 51. (4) A bona fide labor dispute exists under the evidence. Crescent Planing Mill Co. v. Mueller, supra; Frank Schmidt Planing Mill Co. v. Mueller, supra; Milk Wagon Drivers Union v. Lake Valley Farm Products, Inc., 311 U.S. 91, 61 S.Ct. 122. (5) Plaintiffs are not independent contractors but if they are, they may still be brought into the union organization. N.L.R.B. v. Hearst Publications, 64 S.Ct. 851; Milk Wagon Drivers Union v. Lake Valley Farm Products, Inc., supra; Bakery & Pastry Drivers & Helpers v. Wohl, 62 S.Ct. 816. (6) Union members may sell or withhold their labor on such terms as they choose, associate or decline to associate with other workers or may accept, refuse to accept, or terminate a relationship of employment without being subject to injunction under anti-trust acts or pool, combination and conspiracy acts. Hunt v. Crumboch, 65 S.Ct. 1545. (7) The Missouri case of Lohse Patent Door Co. v. Fuelle, 215 Mo. l.c. 447, has no applicability here. Crescent Planing Mill Co. v. Mueller, supra, l.c. 187; Frank Schmidt Planing Mill Co. v. Mueller, supra, l.c. 615; Purcell v. Journeymen Barbers, 133 S.W.2d 662, has no applicability on its facts, l.c. 672-674. (8) The employer-employee relationship is not necessary for a labor dispute to exist. Lauf v. E. D. Skinner & Co., 82 F.2d 68, reversed 303 U.S. 323, 58 S.Ct. 578; Senn v. Tile Layers' Protective Union, 57 S.Ct. 857; American Federation of Labor v. Swing, 312 U.S. 321, 61 S.Ct. 568.
This injunction action is here on plaintiffs' appeal after the Court below sustained defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' petition praying defendants be enjoined to prevent them from hindering, delaying or interfering with the transportation, receipt, unloading or processing of any milk brought by any of the plaintiffs, or their agents, to the Aines Farm Dairy at Kansas City and the Adams Farm Dairy at Blue Springs, Missouri.
Defendants-respondents are officers and members of Local No. 207, of the Milk Drivers and Dairy Employees Union, which had unionized the employees of the above dairies (and other dairies) in Jackson County. Following a pre-concerted plan Union members who were dairy employees refused to receive and unload milk brought to the dairies by plaintiffs because the latter were not Union members. Plaintiffs, on their own farms, produced a portion of the milk refused to be unloaded. The remainder of the milk refused plaintiffs had collected from other farms of producers, along their regular milk routes, while acting as contract haulers.
Relief was sought from an alleged conspiracy (claimed to be in violation of R.S. Mo. 1939, Sec. 8301), to limit competition and restrain trade in the transportation, purchase and sale of milk in Kansas City and nearby territory; to create a monopoly in transportation of milk for hire from farmers to processing plants in that area; to prevent and restrain farmers and producers from freely contracting with non-union haulers; to coerce independent truckers and farmers into the Union; and to destroy the property rights in existing contracts of independent contract haulers, such as plaintiffs, who were operating under state and federal authority.
Constitutional questions were raised in the petition and in the answer.
Upon the filing of the petition a temporary restraining order was issued. That order was dissolved at the close of the trial on the merits, when the motion to dismiss the petition was sustained.
By agreement of parties the cause was presented to the Court below on the merits upon an agreed statement of facts, certain depositions, and upon the transcript of the testimony in a companion case, Rogers v. Poteet et al., 355 Mo. 986, 199 S.W.2d 378. Reference is made to our opinion in that case for a more complete statement of the basic facts involved here. The instant case was tried and dismissed by the trial court long prior to our ruling in the Rogers case.
The agreed statement of facts in the instant case discloses that on July 10, 1945, the Union through its representatives notified the officials of Aines and Adams Dairies, and the Union employees at such Dairies, that the Union employees at those Dairies would refuse to receive or unload any milk brought in to those Dairies by non-union haulers. Exception was to be made as to milk produced solely on the farm of a farmer-hauler. On July 11, 1945, plaintiffs Hobbs and Brownfield, Lightfoot, Melton, Owings and Renick, none of whom were Union members, brought milk to the plants which they had collected along their milk routes. Defendants Edwards, Baker, Brown, Gosney and Kroll, Union employees at the milk plants, refused to receive or unload it. The milk was returned to the farms and became unfit for human consumption. The temporary restraining order was thereafter issued on July 11, 1945.
On July 12, 1945, defendant R. O. Jackson, the Secretary of the Union (who was also a defendant in Rogers v. Poteet, supra), in the presence of the Assistant Superintendent of the Aines Dairy, told defendant Baker, a Union employee of that Dairy working on the receiving dock, not to refuse to receive any milk from any hauler. Jackson there further stated that if the Dairy received any milk delivered by non-union haulers that the Union would declare the plant "unfair" and that a picket line would be placed around the Dairy. The Assistant Superintendent understood the latter statement of Jackson to mean the cessation of business at the plant, the loss of processed stock on hand and the closing of the plant for an indefinite period. In effect Jackson threatened that unless the Dairy combined with the Union to bring about the very thing which the restraining order was issued to prevent that picketing would result. Jackson advised the manager at the Adams Dairy to the same effect. There was no labor dispute between either Dairy and its employees. Neither plant was picketed.
The Union and its officers here contend, however, that there are additional facts in this case, i.e., in addition to the facts in Rogers v. Poteet, which take this case out of the rule we announced in the Rogers case. The Union contends that these distinguishing facts are that after the issuance of the temporary restraining order: (1) defendants abandoned their "jurisdictional campaign" and substituted therefor what their brief calls "a threat, and only a threat", (2) that the Union ceased directing its efforts to have its members refuse to receive milk from non-union haulers at the Aines and Adams Dairies, (3) that the manager at each...
To continue reading
Request your trial