Lafayette Dramatic Prods., Inc. v. Ferentz

Decision Date08 April 1943
Docket NumberNo. 89.,89.
Citation305 Mich. 193,9 N.W.2d 57
PartiesLAFAYETTE DRAMATIC PRODUCTIONS, Inc., v. FERENTZ et al.
CourtMichigan Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Suit by Lafayette Dramatic Productions, Inc., a Michigan corporation, against Jack Ferentz and others, to set aside a contract on ground that it was obtained through duress and coercion, and to enjoin defendants from interfering with plaintiff's operation of its theater. From a decree dismissing plaintiff's bill of complaint, plaintiff appeals.

Reversed and rendered.Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County; Theodore J. Richter, judge.

Before the Entire Bench.

David I. Hubar, of Detroit (Milton M. Maddin, of Detroit, of counsel), for appellant.

Edward N. Barnard, of Detroit, for appellees.

STARR, Justice.

On December 6, 1941, plaintiff filed bill of complaint and on December 24 amended bill of complaint against defendants Jack Ferentz (also known as John S. Ferentz), Buddy Fields, Walter Craig, Roger Kennedy, Ray Showalter, Harry Leib, Detroit Federation of Musicians Local No. 5, A. F. of M. (in this opinion referred to as ‘musicians' union’), and Detroit Theatrical Protective Union Local No. 38 of the Inter national Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Operators (in this opinion referred to as ‘stage hands' union’). In its amended bill plaintiff alleged, in substance, that it was a Michigan corporation organized for the purpose of operating the Shubert Lafayette theater in the city of Detroit; that it had spent large sums of money in rehabilitating such theater, in preparing for the presentation of theatrical productions and for the proposed theater opening October 13, 1941. Plaintiff alleged further that it had entered into a contract with defendant stage hands' union, in pursuance of which it had employed certain named persons to work at the theater. It also alleged that several weeks prior to the opening of the theater defendants Buddy Fields as business agent and Jack Ferentz as president of defendant musicians' union called on plaintiff's manager and insisted that it employ an orchestra of six musicians and that it execute a written contract employing such musicians; that plaintiff's manager refused to execute such contract, informing defendants Fields and Ferentz that in its proposed presentation of plays plaintiff did not desire, require or intend to use any music and would not employ musicians. In its bill plaintiff further alleged, in substance, that about two hours before the proposed theater opening at 8:30 on the evening of October 13, 1941, defendants Fields and others representing the musicians' union, defendant Showalter and others representing the stage hands' union, and a representative of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees presented themselves at the theater office and notified plaintiff's manager that, unless he signed a written contract with defendant musicians' union to employ six musicians, they would not permit plaintiff's theatrical production to be presented; that such defendants notified plaintiff's manager that the musicians' union had combined with the stage hands' union to compel him to sign such contract; and that if the contract were not signed, plaintiff's employees who were members of defendant stage hands' union would immediately go on strike and refuse to render plaintiff services, which would prevent the presentation of the proposed theatrical production.

Plaintiff alleged further that, because of the duress exerted upon it by defendants and in order to protect its theater enterprise, its manager signed a written contract agreeing to employ six musicians in its theater. Plaintiff further charged that a conspiracy existed between defendant musicians' union, defendant stage hands' union, and their officers and employees, by coercion and duress to force your complainant to employ musicians which ‘it did not need or desire to employ’; that such procedure of coercion and duress was unlawful and did not involve a labor dispute or any controversy concerning the terms and conditions of employment; and that plaintiff would have sustained irreparable injury and damages if it had failed to present the proposed theatrical production on the opening night of October 13. Plaintiff further alleged, in substance, that following the signing of the contract its theater was opened and operated, and that the musicians rendered their orchestral services. In its bill plaintiff prayed that the contract in question be vacated and set aside because obtained through duress and coercion; and also that defendants be enjoined from in any manner interfering with plaintiff's ‘peaceful and legal operation’ of its theater because of its refusal to employ musicians.

Defendants answered, denying plaintiff's charges of duress and coercion and alleging that plaintiff ‘freely and voluntarily and without any fraud or coercion’ entered into the contract in question; that a bona fide labor dispute existed between plaintiff and defendant musicians' union; that peaceful picketing is lawful; and that the court was without jurisdiction to enjoin the same. Defendants denied plaintiff's right to the relief sought and asked that its bill of complaint be dismissed.

At the trial plaintiff called as witnesses only its manager, Mr. Nederlander, and its attorney, Mr. Hubar, who testified in support: of the allegations in plaintiff's bill and regarding their interviews and negotiations with defendants and their representatives. Defendants presented no testimony except that of a representative from the county clerk's office who testified relative to the incorporation of plaintiff corporation. The trial court's opinion, filed May 19, 1942, determined that a ‘labor dispute’ was involved; that the contract in question was free from duress or coercion and was valid; and that plaintiff's bill of complaint should be dismissed. Such opinion stated in part:

‘By Act No. 176, Public Acts of 1939, § 2(b), it is provided that:

(b) The terms ‘dispute’ and ‘labor dispute’ shall include but are not restricted to any controversy between employers and employes or their representatives as above defined, concerning terms, tenure or conditions of employment, or concerning the association or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining or changing terms of conditions of employment;' * * *

‘Upon the authority of that case (Lauf v. E. G. Shinner & Co., 303 U.S. 323 [58 S.Ct. 578, 82 L.Ed. 872]), I find that, irrespective of the fact that plaintiff in the instant case did sign a contract with one of the defendant unions in this case, a labor dispute or controversy existed in this case.

‘And obviously if the contract in this case is valid and binding, that contract itself presents a labor controversy of the highest order. This brings us to the question whether for duress or coercion claimed by plaintiff the contract should be declared void.

‘Although the Michigan supreme court has recognized that duress may be of property as well as of person, it is likewise well settled that mere necessitous circumstances do not constitute duress or coercion and cannot be made the grounds for cancellation of a contract made under such circumstances. * * *

‘In the instant case the plaintiff is a corporation and its affairs and the execution of the contract here involved were handled by experienced business men. I find that the parties acted at arm's length in the execution of this contract and that there was no coercion or duress in the making thereof.’

The decree entered May 29, 1942, determined that the contract in question for the employment of musicians was ‘valid and binding upon the parties' and dismissed plaintiff's bill of complaint. Plaintiff appeals from such decree. This being a chancery case, we consider the same de novo.

We recognize that the questions presented on this appeal for our decision are far-reaching and of vital importance to the best interests of unions of employees, to employers, and to the general public. In the case of Carpenters & Joiners Union v. Ritter's Cafe, 315 U.S. 722, 724, 62 S.Ct. 807, 808, 86 L.Ed. 1143, the majority opinion stated in part: ‘The economic contest between employer and employee has never concerned merely the immediate disputants. The clash of such conflicting interest inevitably implicates the well-being of the community. Society has therefore been compelled to throw its weight into the contest. The law has undertaken to balance the effort of the employer to carry on his business free from the interference of others against the effort of labor to further its economic self-interest.’

There is no dispute as to the material facts. The testimony adduced by plaintiff stands undisputed. Plaintiff corporation was organized in April, 1941, for the purpose of rehabilitating and operating the Shubert Lafayette theater. Plaintiff's manager, Mr. Nederlander, testified in substance that companies or individuals resident in New York city owned plaintiff corporation, that they put the money up’ and that it was ‘really a New York enterprise.’ In conversations with plaintiff's manager and attorney certain of the defendants indicated, in effect, that plaintiff corporation was organized and conducted for the purpose of continuing certain labor disputes originating in New York city between theater owners and organized unions of musicians. However, the record discloses no facts regarding the organization, financing or management of plaintiff corporation which would materially affect the substantive rights of the parties involved in the present litigation.

Prior to the proposed opening on October 13, 1941, plaintiff had spent more than $10,000 in refurnishing and rehabilitating the theater and in advertising its opening and productions. It proposed to produce dramas and comedies, and its manager testified that for the production of such attractions it did not require musicians. Plaintiff had entered into a contract with d...

To continue reading

Request your trial
32 cases
  • Midland Pub. Co., Inc., In re
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • January 9, 1985
    ...Milford v. People's Community Hospital Authority, 380 Mich. 49, 55-56, 155 N.W.2d 835 (1968); Lafayette Dramatic Productions, Inc. v. Ferentz, 305 Mich. 193, 218, 9 N.W.2d 57 (1943); Whitman v. Mercy-Memorial Hospital, 128 Mich.App. 155, 158, 339 N.W.2d 730 (1983); Colombini v. Dep't. of So......
  • Rohan v. Detroit Racing Ass'n
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • April 10, 1946
    ...the validity of the lease was not raised by the pleadings, it should not be reviewed on appeal. Lafayette Dramatic Productions, Inc., v. Ferentz, 305 Mich. 193, 9 N.W.2d 57, 145 A.L.R. 1158;Maker v. Peoples Wayne County Bank of Dearborn, 284 Mich. 489, 280 N.W. 31;Roepcke v. Michigan Cent. ......
  • Fred Wolferman, Inc., v. Root, 40366.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • September 8, 1947
    ...285 N.Y. 348, 286 N.Y. 565, 35 N.E. (2d) 920, certiorari denied, 314 U.S. 615, 314 U.S. 716; Lafayette Dramatic Productions v. Ferentz. 305 Mich. 193, 9 N.W. (2d) 57; Harper v. Brennan, 311 Mich. 489, 18 N.W. (2d) 905. (11) Picketing that would have the effect of stopping deliveries to plai......
  • Harper v. Brennan
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • May 14, 1945
    ...neutrals having no relation to either the dispute or the industry in which it arose.’ In Lafayette Dramatic Productions, Inc. v. Ferentz, 305 Mich. 193, 9 N.W.2d 57, 62, 145 A.L.R. 1158, defendant union threatened to prevent the opening and operation of a theatre unless plaintiff theatre wo......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT