Martin v. Smith

• Decision Date: 10 April 1934
• Citation: 286 Mass. 227,190 N.E. 113
• Parties: MARTIN et al. v. SMITH et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

286 Mass. 227

190 N.E. 113

MARTIN et al.

v.SMITH et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

April 10, 1934.

Case Reserved and Report from Superior Court, Suffolk County; F. T. Hammond, Judge.

Suit by James R. Martin and others against Charles N. Smith and others, who filed a cross-bill and a counterclaim, 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 Typographical Union of North America is a voluntary association, in the nature of a labor union, organized many years ago, and consists of about seventy thousand printers and three thousand mailers. In 1892 it granted a charter to a subordinate voluntary association called Newspapers Mailers' Union No. 1 of Boston, in accordance with its practice of instituting subordinate local unions in various cities. The name of this local was later changed to Boston Mailers' Union No. 1. We shall speak of these organizations as the International and the Local, respectively.

In 1902 the constitution of the International was amended so as to permit the formation of a Trade District Union, and there was formed the Mailers' Trade District Union, which we shall call the District. The name is somewhat misleading, for it refers not to a geographical division but to the segregation of the craft of mailers from that of printers in an organization as wide territorially as the International itself. The District was given power (a) to charter, establish and form subordinate unions of its craft, charters to be procured from the International [McNichols v. International Typographical Union (C. C. A.) 63 F.(2d) 490, 491]; (b) to issue to members working at its craft, traveling cards which are important in obtaining employment; (c) to ‘make all laws for the sole government of its craft’; (d) to ‘decide all matters in dispute solely affecting members of its union’; (e) to elect officers of the District, the president of which shall be a vicepresident of the International; and (f) to collect and forward to the International the per capita tax due to the International from subordinate unions of its craft. All the subordinate local unions of mailers then existing, including the Local of Boston, participated in the formation of the District. The district has functioned ever since, holding annual conventions, establishing new subordinate unions, and exercising all the powers just recited. The members of the Local have been members both of the District and the International, by virtue of their membership. The Local has sent delegates to conventions of both. The District has substantial funds held for the benefit of its members, and funds of the International, in which its members have an interest, are very large.

In 1927, the convention of the District, in which delegates from the Local participated, voted to suspend the charter of the Local unless it should comply with a certain order of the convention within thirty days, which it did not do. The District then suspended the charter of the Local. The International did not support the District in this action. The president of the International gave a written opinion that only the International, and not the District, had power to suspend a subordinate union of mailers. In 1929 the Executive Council of the International, which conducted its affairs between conventions, voted to sustain the ruling of the president. The International convention of that year ratified the acts of the president and Executive Council, and voted to preserve the rights of members of the Local to membership in the International. The International regards the Local as one of its subordinate unions in good standing. The majority of the members of the Local, including its officers, have stood by the International, have continued to function as a subordinate union, and have ignored the action of the District in suspendingthe Local. They have paid no dues to the District, and have acted as though unaffiliated with it. They voted in April, 1929, to strike from the Local constitution, by-laws and general laws all reference to the District. A minority, however, who are included among the defendants, have retained their membership in the District, and wish the Local to remain affiliated with it.

This bill, filed on March 18, 1929, sought to restrain the District from organizing a new subordinate union within the territory covered by the Local, and from interfering with the work of the Local. The defendants, who are the District and the minority of the Local, sought, not only by cross bill but also by counterclaim inserted in the answer under Equity Rule 6 of the Superior Court then in force, which adopted Equity Rule 6 of this court (252 Mass. 602), a decree that the majority of the Local have in effect seceded from the District and the Local, and that the minority are entitled to control the Local. The defendants obtained a preliminary injunction upon their cross bill and counterclaim, to enable the minority to work at their craft pendente lite. The decision of this court in Martin v. Smith, 280 Mass. 101, 181 N. E. 744, resulted in the International being made a party, and being served with notice in Indiana under Rule 14 of the Superior Court (1932). It did not appear, and the cross bill and counterclaim were taken against it for confessed.

In Martin v. Smith, 280 Mass. 101, 105, 106, 181 N. E. 744, 745, it was said, ‘The essential questions, all agree, are, ‘1. Did the District have the final authority to suspend the charter of the Local? 2. Can the Local exist and function as a subordinate mailers' body of the International without the consent of the District?’' The controversy is, however, part of a larger controversy in which the International is seeking to eliminate the District and restore the direct and exclusive relations between the subordinate unions of mailers and the International which existed prior to 1902. Partisans of the District assert that the International intends also to deprive all mailers of membership in the International, but this is denied. The International conventionof 1927 voted to repeal the provision of its constitution for Trade District Unions, and retained that provision in its constitution only by compulsion of the injunction issued in Howard v. Weissmann (C. C. A.) 31 F.(2d) 689.

The judge in the Superior Court ordered the entry of a final decree which in substance dismissed the bill with costs; annulled the vote of the Local by which all reference to the District was stricken from its co...