Mcgee v. Local 682 Of Bhd. Of Painters
| Decision Date | 03 February 1943 |
| Docket Number | No. 1632.,1632. |
| Citation | 30 A.2d 461 |
| Parties | McGEE v. LOCAL 682 OF BROTHERHOOD OF PAINTERS, DECORATORS AND PAPERHANGERS OF AMERICA, A. F. OF L., et al. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Counties; G. Frederick Frost, Judge.
Bill in equity by Raymond J. McGee, doing business as Thomas P. McGee & Son, against Local 682 of the Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of America, A. F. of L. and others, for injunctive relief. From a decree granting a preliminary injunction, the respondents appeal.
Decree modified as indicated in the opinion; appeal denied and dismissed, subject to such modification.
John R. Higgins and Higgins & Silverstein, all of Woonsocket, for complainant.
Edward F. Dwyer and Irving I. Zimmerman, both of Woonsocket, for respondent.
This is a bill in equity in which the complainant seeks injunctive relief against the respondents. The superior court, after a hearing on the complainant's prayer for a preliminary injunction, granted the prayer and a decree was duly entered. The respondents thereupon prosecuted their appeal to this court from the entry of that decree.
In substance, the complainant, who for many years has conducted a painting, paperhanging and decorating business in Woonsocket in this state and who employs about twenty persons, alleged in his bill that the respondents have deliberately interfered with his business by representing to his present customers and to prospective customers that he is unfair to organized labor, and by threatening to picket said customers unless they sever business relations with him; that because of the respondents' conduct the complainant has had contracts cancelled and his name removed from the bidding list of some of his customers, actual and prospective; and that the respondents have threatened to continue to act as aforesaid. The complainant, therefore, prayed that the respondents be temporarily and permanently enjoined from interfering with his said customers.
The respondents contend that the superior court committed error in entering the decree appealed from because its effect was to deny them their alleged right of freedom of speech; because that court had no jurisdiction to grant any injunction at all in this cause; and because the complainant is seeking equitable relief without first doing equity himself.
In our opinion, in view of the record before us, we cannot pass on these issues at this time. The bill is sworn to by the complainant and no answers have been filed by the respondents. No testimony was introduced before the justice who granted the preliminary injunction. The complainant merely agreed at the hearing in the superior court that the respondents' witnesses would testify to the existence of certain facts. The transcript shows that the material facts of the cause were referred to in the superior court by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
AF Lusi Const., Inc. v. Peerless Ins. Co.
...provisions, it cannot resolve questions of contract interpretation. McGee v. Local 682 of the Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of America, A.F. of L., 69 R.I. 1, 3, 30 A.2d 461, 462 (1943). Even if the incorporation and flow-down provisions of the contracts here resulted......
-
Coolbeth v. Berberian
...are set out in a long line of cases including Studley Land Co. v. Myers, 81 R.I. 426, 103 A.2d 924 (1954); McGee v. Local 682, Bhd. of Painters, 69 R.I. 1, 30 A.2d 461 (1943); Miller v. Tanenbaum, 61 R.I. 92, 200 A. 449 (1938); Smart v. Boston Wire Stitcher Co., 50 R.I. 409, 148 A. 803 (193......
-
Studley Land Co. v. Myers
...question may be irreparably injured or endangered.' Miller v. Tanenbaum, 61 R.I. 92, 95, 200 A. 449, 450; McGee v. Local 682 of Brotherhood of Painters, Etc., 69 R.I. 1, 30 A.2d 461. It is also well established that the granting of a prayer for a preliminary injunction rests largely in the ......
-
Gilbane Bldg. Co. v. Cianci, s. 76-391-M
...of plaintiff's basic contentions cannot now be determined but must await a full hearing on the merits, McGee & Son v. Local 682, 69 R.I. 1, 3, 30 A.2d 461, 462-63 (1943), the evidence presented at the hearing satisfies us that the trial justice was within the limits of the discretion custom......