Martin v. Smith
| Decision Date | 08 July 1932 |
| Citation | 181 N.E. 744,280 Mass. 101 |
| Parties | MARTIN et al. v. SMITH et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Report and Reservation from Superior Court, Suffolk County; E. T. Hammond, Judge.
Bill by James R. Martin and others against Charles N. Smith and others, wherein some defendants filed a cross-bill. The case comes before the Supreme Judicial Court by reservation, without decision, by a judge of the Superior Court after entry of interlocutory decrees confirming by consent the master's report and supplemental report.1
Order in accordance with opinion.
J. V. Spaulding, of Boston, for plaintiffs.
J. F. Barry and J. J. Cronin, both of Boston, for defendants.
This matter is before us by reservation, without decision, by a judge of the superior court, upon the pleadings, the master's reports and the exhibits referred to therein and thereto annexed, after entry of interlocutory decrees confirming, by consent, the master's report and supplemental report. Such decree is to be entered as justice and equity may require.
Material facts are as follows: The bill is brought by the president, secretary and treasurer of Boston Mailers' Union No. 1, which will hereinafter be referred to as the Local, a voluntary unincorporated association, individually and as representing the members of that Local other than certain members joined as defendants, against the president, the secretary and a vice-president of the Mailers' Trade District Union of the International Typographical Union of North America, a voluntary unincorporated association, which will hereinafter be referred to as the District, individually and as representing the members of the District, and against certain named members of the Local who are also members in good standing of the District. The plaintiffs are not members in good standing of the District. No service was made upon the secretary and the vice-president of the District nor upon one McArdle. By consent, the bill was discontinued as to them without prejudice. A cross bill was filed by the defendant members of both the Local and the District. The president of the District did not join in the cross bill.
The Local received a charter in 1892 from the International Typographical Union of North America which hereinafter will be referred to as the International, a voluntary unincorporated association of printers and mailers with local unions established throughout the United States and Canada. The International claimed jurisdiction over ‘all branches of the printing and kindred trades, other than those over which jurisdiction has been conceded by agreement.’ The Local has functioned since that date with a membership made up of mailers, i. e., ‘men and women engaged in mailing, which is an allied craft of printing, such as the addressing, tagging, stamping, labelling, bundling or wrapping of papers, envelopes, magazines, and similar things.’ The conditions of this charter were that the Local was to ‘be subordinate to and comply with all the requirements of the constitution of the’ International, ‘that it shall not at any time fail to be represented at the annual sessions, and shall for all times be guided and controlled by the enactments passed at such session of the’ International. The charter provided, ‘So long as the said union adheres to the above conditions this charter to remain in full force, but upon infraction thereof the International Typographical Union may revoke said charter, and all privileges secured thereby shall be annulled.’ In 1902 all local unions of mailers then existing under the jurisdiction of the International held a convention in which the Local was represented by its delegates and formed themselves into the District in accord with article XIII of the constitution of the International. The District created its own constitution, bylaws, and general laws, has held annual conventions and has functioned, exercising jurisdiction over all matters as provided by article XIII with the knowledge, consent and approval of the International-at least until 1927. The Local has paid monthly per capita tax to the District, attended and participated in its conventions, appealed and referred appeals to the District...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Donahue v. Kenney
...Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 270 Mass. 233, 235, 170 N.E. 49. See Montgomery v. Richards, 275 Mass. 553, 176 N.E. 526; Martin v. Smith, 280 Mass. 101, 106, 181 N.E. 744; Manfredi v. O'Brien, 282 Mass. 458, 462, 185 N.E. 365. It is necessary that all parties who have an interest in the subject m......
-
Kilroy v. O'Connor
...payment of its funds. It is plain that the county should have been made a party. Bauer v. Mitchell, 247 Mass. 522 , 525, 526. Martin v. Smith, 280 Mass. 101 , 106. Home Development Co. v. Dupre, 323 Mass. 98 99-100. The county commissioners other than the defendant have an actual and essent......
-
Martin v. Smith
...which was referred to Edward M. Dangel, as referee. On reservation and report. Decree in accordance with opinion. See, also, 280 Mass. 101, 181 N. E. 744.M. J. Robinson, of Boston, for plaintiffs.J. F. Barry and J. J. Cronin, both of Boston, for defendants.LUMMUS, Justice. The International......
-
Shepoka v. Knopik
...It is plain that the county should have been made a party. Bauer v. Mitchell, 247 Mass. 522, 525, 526, 142 N.E. 815; Martin v. Smith, 280 Mass. 101, 106, 181 N.E. 744; Home Development Co. v. Dupre, 323 Mass. 98, 99--100, 79 N.E.2d 875.' In discussing the Massachusetts declaratory judgment ......