In re Seattle, L.S. & E. Ry. Co.

• Citation: 61 F. 541
• Court: United States Circuit Court, District of Washington, Northern Division
• Decision Date: 17 May 1894
• Parties: In re SEATTLE, L. S. & E. RY. CO. BROWN et al. GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE OF BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY TRAINMEN, LODGE NO. 196, et al.

61 F. 541

In re SEATTLE, L. S. & E. RY. CO. v. BROWN et al.

GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE OF BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY TRAINMEN, LODGE NO. 196, et al.

United States Circuit Court, D. Washington, Northern Division.

May 17, 1894

Richard Saxe Jones, for petitioners.

Carr &amp Preston, for receivers.

HANFORD District Judge.

The amended petition in this case contains an accusation against Thomas R. Brown, as receiver of the Seattle, Lake Shore &amp Eastern Railway, of having wrongfully, without cause or justification, discharged persons theretofore holding positions as conductors on the railway, including the petitioner James E. Corcoran, and sets forth an alleged contract entered into prior to the appointment of said receiver by and between the North Pacific Railroad Company (which was then in practical control of the Seattle, Lake Shore & Eastern Railway) and its employes, including the said discharged conductors, containing, among other things, a stipulation that the employes were not to be discharged except for cause; and that, in case of the discharge of any employe, he should, upon demand, be furnished with a written specification of the cause therefor, and have a right to an investigation by the division superintendent and three trainmen, who should have power to take evidence and determine whether the charge was true or false; and that, in the event of a determination by such board of arbitration that there was not sufficient cause for his dismissal, such employe should be restored to his position, and receive compensation during the time of his suspension. The petition alleges that this contract was confirmed and put in force by the officers of the Seattle Law Shore & Eastern Railway Company as to all of its employes, and that since his appointment said receiver, with full knowledge of its existence, continued the employes of said company in their positions, and operated the railway thereunder.

While there is room to question the validity of the alleged contract in its entirety as affecting the employes of the Seattle, Lake Shore & Eastern Railway Company, and whether any part of it is binding upon the receiver, I shall place this decision on the ground that the particular stipulations above set forth are not binding upon the receiver. These provisions cannot be binding upon others than the immediate parties, and, so far as the same affect the receiver, are repugnant to the order of the court placing the railway and its operation under his control and management. The idea that employes in the service of a railway corporation have such an interest in...