Holley v. Painters Local Union No. 318

• Decision Date: 14 February 1964
• Docket Number: No. 16486,16486
• Citation: 376 S.W.2d 44
• Parties: Charles E. HOLLEY et al., Appellants, v. PAINTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 318 et al., Appellees.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Page 44

376 S.W.2d 44

Charles E. HOLLEY et al., Appellants, v. PAINTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 318 et al., Appellees.

No. 16486.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Fort Worth.

Feb. 14, 1964.

Rehearing Denied March 13, 1964.

Jack Love and Ernest May, Fort Worth, for appellants.

Willis & Williams, Fort Worth, for appellee Painters Local Union No. 318.

Herbert S. Thatcher, Washington, D. C., for appellee Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of America.

Sam Houston Clinton, Jr., Austin, Tex., for appellee Painters Local Union No. 318 and Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of America.

LANGDON, Justice.

This is a suit for reinstatement and damages tried before the court without a jury on a third amended original petition filed by six former members of a union against W. E. Tatum and the local union of which they were members and an international union with which the local union is affiliated. The trial court entered judgment based upon an informal opinion containing findings of fact and conclusions of law which was filed as part of the record in this case and included in the transcript. The judgment denied all relief to Holley, C. C. Johnston and B. U. Simonds and ordered Honea, T. .B. Simonds and Anderson reinstated while denying them damages. The first five named have filed an appellate brief. The local union and the brotherhood have perfected their appeal from certain rulings of the court and that portion of the judgment ordering reinstatement of Honea, Anderson and T. B. Simonds. The brotherhood and the union are therefore appellants in some aspects of the case and appellees in others. The opinion will refer to them as appellees. We affirm.

Appellees' motion to dismiss as to T. B. Simonds because he was not covered by the appeal bond is overruled as he was covered by an amended bond as reflected by the supplemental transcript filed herein.

We next consider the motion of the appellees attacking the appellants' brief because of the alleged failure of the asserted points of error to comply with Rule 418, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, in that they do not 'direct the attention of the court to the error relied upon' because they are vague, indefinite and general abstract statements describing the judgment of the trial court rather than complaining of some specific action of the trial court with respect to matters of evidence or of law. The motion is overruled. Fambrough v. Wagley, 140 Tex. 577, 169 S.W.2d 478; Taylor v. United Ass'n of J. & A. of Plumbing, etc., Tex.Civ.App., 337 S.W.2d 421; Paul v. Johnson, Tex.Civ.App., 314 S.W.2d 338, 343.

We have concluded that the points are based on no evidence and that the rule in Frazier v. Williams, Tex.Civ.App., 359 S.W.2d 213, 214 is applicable. This case in which there is no writ history holds, 'In cases tried before the court without a jury, in the absence of a point that the judgment is contrary to the overwhelming weight and preponderance of the evidence, the rule is well settled that the judgment must be affirmed if there is any evidence of probative value to support it and that only evidence which tends to support the judgment may be considered. See Wilson v. Teague Independent School District, Tex.Civ.App., 251 S.W.2d 263, (Writ Ref.).' See also the Article by Chief Justice Calvert of the Texas Supreme Court entitled 'No Evidence and Insufficient Evidence Points of Error', 38 Tex.Law Review 361.

By their first three points the appellants contend that the court erred in holding that the local union's suspension of Holley, Johnston, and B. U. Simonds was just and by their last three points that the court erred in holding that Honea and T. B. Simonds proved no damages and the refusal of damages and reinstatement to Holley and B. U. Simonds.

In considering the no evidence points we view the evidence in its most favorable light in support of the findings of the trial court, considering only the evidence and the inferences which support the findings and rejecting the evidence and the inferences which are contrary to the finding. Cartwright v. Canode, 106 Tex. 502, 171 S.W. 696; 38 Tex.Law Review 361, supra. The trial court in his findings stated that the attorney for the appellants in a brief filed with him conceded that "The Charges against B. U. Simonds and C. C. Johnston under Sec. 277 (of the Union Constitution) were sufficiently specific and the evidence sufficient that, in other circumstances, they might have merited mild discipline." The trial court found that the charges were not only adequate but that the evidence was amply sufficient to justify imposition of the fines by the trial board. We agree with the trial court that the evidence before it and the trial board would have justified the trial board in concluding that these two plaintiffs had been guilty of conduct which if permitted to continue would have wrecked the union and made it undesirable for peaceful members thereof to attend its meetings. That the fines of $1000.00 considered in the light of the gravity of the offenses charged and proved under Sec. 277 together with the sum of the annual earnings these two men admittedly received were not excessive. We also agree with the trial court that the charges against Holley under Sec. 277 were sufficient and that the evidence fully justified the trial board's action in assessing a fine of $300.00 against him. Based upon the record as a whole we are in accord with the finding of the trial court that the officials of the union acted in good faith in bringing the charges and conducting the trials. To an unbiased mind the evidence in this record would dictate a single untimatum that something had to be done to preserve the union and its membership. Otherwise the union could have been wrecked as was indicated by the trial court. In cases where the trial board of the union acts fairly and in good faith as we believe they have in this instance their action is conclusive and cannot be disturbed by a court. St. Louis & S. W. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Thompson, 102 Tex. 89, 113 S.W. 144. The appellants' first three points of error are overruled.

In reviewing the record we find ourselves in full accord with the trial court tha...