International Broth. of Boilermakers Etc. v. Newman

• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: HALL; FELTON, C.J., and EBERHARDT
• Citation: International Broth. of Boilermakers Etc. v. Newman, 158 S.E.2d 298, 116 Ga.App. 590 (Ga. App. 1967)
• Decision Date: 06 November 1967
• Docket Number: Nos. 43071,43072,No. 1,s. 43071,1
• Parties: INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS ETC. v. A. W. NEWMAN et al. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS ETC., LOCAL NO. 26 v. A. W. NEWMAN et al

Page 298

158 S.E.2d 298

116 Ga.App. 590

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS ETC. v. A. W. NEWMAN et al.

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS ETC., LOCAL NO. 26 v. A. W. NEWMAN et al.

Nos. 43071, 43072.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 1.

Nov. 6, 1967.

Syllabus by the Court

The trial court did not err in denying summary judgment for an international and a local union when the evidence presented on the motion did not establish the lack of a genuine issue whether the dynamiting of the plaintiffs' place of business was done at the instigation of a member of the union strike negotiating committee within the scope of his agency to make the strike and negotiations for settlement effective and in the prosecution of and within the scope of the interests of the local and the international unions in the strike.

The plaintiffs brought this action against an international union, hereinafter called the international, a local union, hereinafter called the local, and three individuals for damages to their property and business caused by dynamiting in which the defendants allegedly conspired. The international and the local appeal from the judgment of the trial court denying their motions for summary judgment.

The plaintiffs' petition alleged that A. W. Newman, hereinafter called the plaintiff, was an employee at a plant which was being struck by the local, but did not wish to become a member of the union, and that he and his wife, a co-plaintiff, owned a business known as Ruby's Bar; that the individual defendants acted as agents of the international and of the local in exploding dynamite in the plaintiffs' place of business, in furtherance of a conspiracy to damage the plaintiffs in an effort to intimidate and coerce them and put them out of business because the plaintiff was not a member of the union; and that the defendant local union supervised, led, urged, instructed, encouraged, approved, adopted, ratified, and acquiesced in the unlawful acts; and that this conspiratorial enterprise arose out of and in the scope of and in furtherance and prosecution of the strike.

The international and the local submitted in support of their motions for summary judgment affidavits of the president of the international, of business manager of the local, and of the defendant Barber. These affidavits in general contradicted the plaintiffs' allegations of agency, conspiracy, and ratification and stated that union members were instructed and encouraged to avoid acts of violence and that the defendant Barber was specifically instructed to refrain from violence in connection with the strike and that he was not involved in and had no knowledge of the dynamiting of Ruby's Bar.

Frank O. Downing, James Edward McAleer, Jr., Savannah, for appellants.

Robert J. Duffy, Emery L. Duffy, Savannah, for appellees.

HALL, Judge.

In order for evidence presented on a motion to demand that a summary judgment be granted, it must establish that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The burden is upon the moving party, and the party opposing the motion is given the benefit of all reasonable doubts and all favorable inferences that may be drawn from the evidence. Holland v. Sanfox Corp., 106 Ga.App. 1, 126 S.E.2d 442. The question before us is whether the evidence established that there was no genuine issue that the unlawful acts allegedly done by the defendants Barber, Jones and Bland were done in furtherance of the interests of the local and the international, and whether the local and the international conspired with the individual defendants in a common design to further the strike by the alleged unlawful acts, or ratified the alleged unlawful acts. Though the defendants presented evidence on the negative of these issues, evidence of the following facts and other circumstantial evidence was also presented. The local is a...