Local Union No. 135, Affiliated with Intern. Broth. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, A. F. L. v. Merchandise Warehouse Co.
| Decision Date | 26 June 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 29550,No. 135,135,29550 |
| Citation | 240 Ind. 153,159 N.E.2d 388 |
| Parties | LOCAL UNION NO. 135, AFFILIATED WITH THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, A. F. L.; Gene Sans Souci, President, James Burrello, William Schlott and Harry Belmore, Individually and as Representatives of all Members, Agents, and Employees of Local Union, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, A.F.L., too numerous to mention herein; Elmer Roy, Elva Roy, Harry Rady, Glen Vanover, Johnny Lawson, Richard Schaeffer, Percy Miles, Luther Graphman, A. K. McFarland, Robert Flynn, Leo J. Bauer, and E. J. Hefner, Appellants, v. MERCHANDISE WAREHOUSE COMPANY, Inc., Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Edward J. Fillenwarth, of Gregg, Fillion, Fillenwarth & Hughes, Indianapolis, for appellants.
Donald C. Duck, William E. Roberts, Indianapolis, Cadick, Burns, Duck & Neighbours, Indianapolis, of counsel, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a final decree which adjudged appellants guilty of a civil contempt for having violated a temporary injunction, which injunction had previously enjoined appellants from picketing appellee's premises.
In answer to appellee's information for contempt, appellants filed an answer which stated facts by reason of which the picketing as then conducted was lawful and not in violation of the injunction previously issued. These paragraphs of appellants' answer were stricken by the court on motion of appellee on the ground that the injunction prohibited all picketing and therefore the subject matter of the stricken paragraphs could not constitute a defense to the action.
The error here presented and argued on appeal is that the court erred in striking these paragraphs of appellants' answer.
Since the present action is grounded upon the prior judgment for temporary injunction an understanding of that case is necessary. The decree in that case was as follows:
'It is therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed by the Court, that the defendants, Local Union No. 135, Affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, A.F.L., and the members thereof, separately and severally, Gene Sans Souci, President of Local Union No. 135, James Burrello, William Schlott and Harry Belmore, their agents and representatives, should be, and hereby are, each enjoined from continuing and maintaining the picket line now existing at Merchandise Warehouse Company, Inc.'s Warehouse, at 1414 South West Street in the City of Indianapolis, Marion County, Indiana, and the property and premises adjacent thereto used by and useful to plaintiff in connection with the operation of its warehouse operations, and in any other way interfering with, disturbing or molesting plaintiff herein and its employees and incoming drivers, from using said warehouse at 1414 South West Street, the facilities and properties adjacent thereto in the manner required and necessary in the conduct of their warehouse operation, until further order of this Court.'
An analysis of the decree discloses that it is in two parts. In the first, appellants were 'enjoined from continuing and maintaining the picket line now existing at Merchandise Warehouse Company, Inc.'s Warehouse.' (Our italics.) The second part enjoined appellants from 'in any other way interfering with, disturbing or molesting plaintiff [appellee] herein and its employees and incoming drivers, from using said warehouse * * * in the conduct of their warehouse operation, until further order of this Court.' (Our italics.)
The basic question which must be determined is: what, in fact, did the decree enjoin? In construing a decree it is the duty of this court, if possible, to give it that construction which sustains its validity. Ayres v. Smith, 1949, 227 Ind. 82, 92, 84 N.E.2d 185; State ex rel. Western Const. Co. v. Board, etc., 1906, 166 Ind. 162, 203, 76 N.E. 986; In re Summers, 1922, 79 Ind.App. 108, 113, 137 N.E. 291; 2 I.L.E. Appeals §§ 511, 534, pp. 406, 454; 17 I.L.E. Judgments § 321, p. 374. Since the decree does not specifically describe the type of picketing prohibited, but merely describes such picketing as the 'picket line now existing', therefore to determine the type of picketing prohibited we must look to the findings of fact. Generally these findings disclose that there was no labor dispute between appellee and appellants and on the basis of the finding the court concluded that 'the picket line now [then] existing' was fraudulent. See Local Union No. 135, Affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, A.F.L. v. Merchandise Warehouse Co., Inc., 1956, 127 Ind.App. 57, 132 N.E.2d 715.
Since peaceful picketing lawfully conducted could not be enjoined 1 and since the decree is susceptible to the following construction, we conclude that this first portion of the decree prohibited only picketing which misrepresented the facts, as was true of 'the picket line now existing' and that the decree did not prohibit picketing peacefully and otherwise lawfully conducted.
By the same logic the latter part of the decree, which prohibited appellants from 'in any other way interfering with, disturbing or molesting plaintiff [appellee]' (our italics) in the use of its warehouse, must be construed to prohibit other unspecified acts, that is other than by a picket line, which would interfere with appellee's use of its property. This second provision of the decree can be so construed. And since so construed its validity can be sustained, but could not be sustained if construed as prohibiting all picketing, therefore the construction above stated, which sustains its validity, is adopted.
In summary, upon this issue, we conclude that the decree prohibited appellants from maintaining the picket line then existing, which fraudulently represented the facts regarding the circumstances under which the picketing line then existed, and from doing any other acts, other than picketing, which interfered with the operation of appellee's business. The decree could not and did not, as contended by appellee, enjoin all picketing.
We next consider whether, under the decree of injunction, and in defense of the information for contempt thereof, appellants were entitled to specifically plead and prove that the picketing as currently conducted was outside the prohibition of the injunction. The law upon this subject is well established as follows:
'While a direct...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Van Bibber v. Norris
... ... by or on behalf of the Buyer in connection with this Agreement proving to have been false in any ... this conversation Runk discovered in a local newspaper that Norris had been arrested the night ... some of the trailer's contents in a warehouse. These were subsequently destroyed by a fire ... No. 135 v. Merchandise Warehouse Co., (1959) 240 Ind ... v. Employers Commercial Un. Ins. Co. of America, (1978) Ind.App., 376 N.E.2d 534, 537 ... 9 ... ...
-
State ex rel. Durham v. Marion Circuit Court
... ... 135] court at any time not more than ten nor less ... that if a party withdraws his appearance with the permission in the court, the court loses ... ...
-
Caito v. Indianapolis Produce Terminal, Inc., 2--573A125
... ... Units #318--320 from Terminal at its warehouse located at 4101 Massachusetts Avenue, ... '1. The Plaintiff hereby dismisses, with prejudice, this cause of action as to Philip ... Local Union No. 135, Etc. v. Merchandise Warehouse Co., ... ...
-
Schmidt Enterprises, Inc. v. State
... ... The next day the men returned with Thomas Schmidt, who, upon inspecting the furnace, ... Local Union No. 135 et al. v. Merchandise Warehouse Co ... ...