Huckaby v. Griffin Hosiery Mills

• Decision Date: 16 March 1949
• Docket Number: 16535.
• Citation: Huckaby v. Griffin Hosiery Mills, 205 Ga. 88, 52 S.E.2d 585 (Ga. 1949)
• Parties: HUCKABY et al. v. GRIFFIN HOSIERY MILLS.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

52 S.E.2d 585

205 Ga. 88

HUCKABY et al. v. GRIFFIN HOSIERY MILLS.

No. 16535.

Supreme Court of Georgia

March 16, 1949

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Persons who have actual knowledge of the existence and contents of a restraining order, even though they are not parties to proceeding for injunction upon which the restraining order was issued, are subject to attachment for contempt for a violation of its terms.

2. Whether a contempt of court has been committed in violation of a restraining order is a question for the discretion and judgment of the court that issued the order, and its discretion will not be controlled by this court unless there has been an abuse of that discretion.

On November 4, 1948, Griffin Hosiery Mills, a corporation, doing business as 'Dovedown Hosiery Mills,' was granted a temporary restraining order by the Superior Court of Spalding County, against certain named officials and members of Branch 115 of the American Federation of Hosiery Workers, who were at that time engaged in a labor dispute with and a strike against the petitioner. The order restrained 'the defendants and each of them, their agents, associates, and all persons in concert with or acting in aid of said defendants' from, among other things, 'using any threats to or towards any employee of Dovedown Hosiery Mills for the purpose of inducing such employee to refrain from working at said mill.' On November 13, 1948, on the interlocutory hearing, the restraining order was continued in full force and effect until the final determination of the case. Thereafter, and on November, 19, 1948, Griffin Hosiery Mills filed its petition for an attachment for contempt against Glenn Jimmerson, Victor Huckaby, and Sam Akin, for an alleged violation of the restraining order. This application was heard on December 4, 1948, and on motion was dismissed as to Jimmerson. Huckaby and Akin were adjudged to be guilty of contempt of court and sentenced to serve 20 days in jail and to pay a fine of $200 each. The exception is to that judgment.

Daniel Duke, of Atlanta, and Herbert G. B. King, of Chattanooga Tenn., for plaintiffs in error.

Cumming Cumming & Cumming and Jos. R. Cumming, all of Griffin, for defendant in error.

CANDLER Justice (after stating the foregoing facts.)

Only two questions are presented for determination by the writ of error, and they are: (1) was the evidence sufficient to authorize the trial judge to find, as a matter of fact, that the plaintiffs in error had actual knowledge of the restraining order alleged to have been violated? and (2) assuming that they had knowledge of the restraining order, was the evidence sufficient to authorize the judge to find that they had violated its terms? Other assignments of error that were not abandoned, either expressly or by the failure of counsel to insist upon them, are controlled by the rulings made on the questions presented.

1. The plaintiffs in error were not named as parties defendant in the original injunction proceeding. Nevertheless, it is well settled that they were subject to attachment for contempt for a violation of the terms of the restraining order, provided it was shown by the evidence that they acted after having actual knowledge of the court's order. Carson v Ennis, 146 Ga. 726, 92 S.E. 221, L.R.A.1917E, 650; Tomlin v. Rome Stove & Range Co., 183 Ga. 183, 187 S.E. 879; Lassiter v. Swift & Co., 204 Ga. 561, 50 S.E.2d 359. On this question the record presents no difficulty. It is undisputed that Huckaby and Akin were members of Branch 115 of the American Federation of Hosiery Workers, and were on strike against Dovedown Hosiery Mills at the time the restraining order and the order of continuance were issued. The evidence on the hearing of the application for attachment for contempt was limited to the sworn pleadings and affidavits. The petition was verified by E. Shapard, vice-president of Griffin Hosiery Mills, by an affidavit, in which he stated that the allegations of the petition are true. It was admitted in evidence, without objection, as an affidavit. It was alleged therein that Huckaby and Akin 'had actual notice of the aforesaid restraining order and its continuance by the order of November 13, 1948, prior to the time of the commission of the acts hereinafter alleged.' While Huckaby and Akin, in their answer which was verified on information and belief only, denied this allegation of the petition, yet neither party in his sworn affidavit, which was introduced in evidence, denied having actual knowledge of the restraining order. This direct proof authorized the trial judge to find that the...