Miller v. Int'l Union Of United Brewery

CourtVirginia Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtMILLER, Justice
CitationMiller v. Int'l Union Of United Brewery, 187 Va. 889, 48 S.E.2d 252 (1948)
Decision Date14 June 1948
PartiesMILLER et al. v. INTERNATIONAL UNION OF UNITED BREWERY, FLOUR, CEREAL, AND SOFT DRINK WORKERS OF AMERICA, etc.

Appeal from Court of Law and Chancery of City of Norfolk; O. L. Shackleford, Judge.

Suit by International Union of United Brewery, Flour, Cereal, and Soft Drink Workers of America, etc., against J. F. Miller and others, to enjoin defendants from interfering with contracts of plaintiff union, for an accounting of funds and property appropriated by defendants, and their return to plaintiffs, wherein defendants filed a cross-bill. From an adverse decree, defendants appeal.

Affirmed.

Before HUDGINS, C. J., and GREGORY, EGGLESTON, SPRATLEY, BUCHANAN, STAPLES, and MILLER, JJ.

Ernest S. Merrill, of Norfolk, for appellants.

Louis B. Fine, of Norfolk, for appellees.

MILLER, Justice.

This suit is the result of controversies that arose among members and officers of an unincorporated association in the city of Norfolk known as Brewery and Soft Drink Workers, Local Union No. 188, which is one of the appellees and will hereinafter be referred to as Local 188.

These dissensions culminated in a division of that local union and the formation, by its officers and some members, of another unincorporated association named Brewery Workers, Warehousemen, Soft Drink Drivers and Helpers, Local 468, International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America. It is the principal appellant and will hereinafter be referred to as Local 468.

The individual appellants, J. F. Miller, P. N. Anderson, R. C. Powell, and A. G. Godwin; had, prior to April 23, 194-6, been President, Recording Secretary, Financial Secretary and Treasurer, and Business Agent, respectively, of Local 188. At a meeting held on the above date and herein discussed at length, they disassociated themselves with that union and were elected to the same offices in Local 468 which was then formed.

At the time of this secession Local 188 had on deposit $1828.08, and also owned several bonds of the value of $456.70, and certain articles of personal property, books and records. This money and property rep-presented the accumulation of dues, assessments, etc., paid over a period of years by members of Local 188. Both local unions, i. e., Local 188 and Local 468, claimed these funds and the property, and the officers of Local 468 undertook to hold and retain them for that union.

The final decree of December 5, 1946, awarded all money, assets, and property to Local 188, and the ultimate question to be decided is: Which of these two unincorporated associations is entitled thereto?

This requires a determination of the validity and force of the action taken at the meeting of Local 188 held on April 23, 1946. It was at that meeting and as a result of proceedings then taken that Local 468 actually came into existence.

For about seven years Local 188 had been connected with and operated under a charter from its parent organization--International Union of United Brewery, Flour, Cereal and Soft Drink Workers of America, which association is likewise an appellee herein. It will hereinafter be referred to as International.

The constitution and by-laws of Local 188 provided, among other things, as follows:

"Section 1. This Union shall be known as the Brewery and Soft Drink Workers, Local Union No. 188, Norfolk, Virgina, and vicinity, of the International Union of United Brewery, Flour, Cereal and Soft Drink Workers of America."

It further provided that regular monthly meetings be held; that fifteen or more members would constitute a quorum; that all offices be filled yearly by nomination in November, election by printed ballot in December, and installation of those so elected in January for terms of one year, except the Business Agent was to hold office for two years; and that for each special meeting notice be given definitely stating its purpose.

In the Constitution of International, the parent organization of Local 188, is found the following:

"Section 53. If a local union dissolves, the General Executive Board shall appoint one of the last members who remained in the union of that place, as trustee, and he shall turn over all property of the dissolved union to the General Executive Board."

There is no specific provision in the constitution or by-laws or in any resolution of record of Local 188 that requires the giving of notice when a regular meeting is held.

At its annual convention in March, 1946, in Cincinnati, Ohio, International decided to submit to its members, which included Local 188, whether or not it should affiliate with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, better known as C. I. O. To ascertain the wishes of its members, it decided to hold a referendum on that question.

Appellant, A. G. Godwin, had attended that convention as delegate from Local 188. He had been instructed to report upon the action taken by International. At a meeting on April 7, 1946, of Local 188, he reported that such referendum, that is, whether to affiliate with C. I. O, was to be submitted to International's membership. Upon receipt of that information, the Executive Board of Local 188 was directed to ascertain if it could become affiliated with some other international labor organization connected with the American Federation of Labor.

Appellant, Godwin, was personally opposed to any connection with C. I. O., and whether or not justified in such opposition, he insisted that Local 188 should not follow International into such affiliation.

Without further notice to the members of Local 188, the Executive Board, of which appellants Miller, Godwin, and Anderson were members, proceeded forthwith to obtain a charter from International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America (an affiliate of A. F. L.), under the name and number of Brewery Workers, Warehousemen, Soft Drink Drivers and Helpers, Local 468. This charter was actually obtained before the meeting of April 23, 1946.

The regular monthly meeting of Local 188, on April 23, 1946, for which meeting no notice was given, was attended by about eighty to eighty-five of the total membership of three hundred and twenty. It was then determined by a decided majority of those present that Local 188 sever its affiliation with International, its parent organization, and from which it had derived its charter, accept the new charter for Local 468 from the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Etc.; assign and transfer all of its property, money, assets and contracts with the breweries and distributors relative to hours and wages of its members, dues book and records to the new association--Local 468. Appellants, Miller, Anderson, Powell and Godwin, were also elected to the same offices in Local 468 as they had theretofore held in Local 188, but for terms of three years. The vote of those present on these extraordinary resolutions was about seventy-four to six. The vote on the election of these officers was fifty-five to twenty-seven. John P. Spry, Sr., the present Business Manager of Local 188, and about five other members who were present opposed this entire proceeding.

After that meeting, Local 468 operated under its charter. Its officers appropriated and retained on its behalf all of the money, assets, books and records theretofore held and used by Local 188. They further physically held the old charter of Local 188, yet they undertook to obtain contracts with the breweries and distributors for and in the name of the new association--Local 468.

When this unauthorized and unusual action became generally known to the members at large of Local 188, it was promptly repudiated by a distinct majority. Within less than two weeks one hundred and fifty or more had signed written evidence of their loyalty to Local 188 and their desire that it act as their bargaining agent with the breweries and distributors where its members were employed. In fact, though appellants claim that about eighty voted for the secession and reorganization of April 23, 1946, it appears that about thirty of that number never actually joined Local 468 but adhered to their membership in Local 188.

Demand in writing was made by a representative of International, the parent organization, that appellant A. G. Godwin of Local 468 immediately return the property, cash, records and contracts that had been owned and held by Local 188 to the local representative of International. Upon failure to comply with this request, suit was promptly filed by appellees. They allege that Local 188 never ceased to exist and that the action taken on April 23, 1946, was unwarranted and unauthorized on the part of the officers and members who participated therein. They assert that the cash, assets, property, records, and charter of Local 188 still belong to that association and that it is the rightful holder of the contracts with the several breweries and distributors theretofore held by it. The prayer of the bill is that Local 468 and its officers be enjoined from interfering with the...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
9 cases
  • E.C. v. Virginia Dep't of Juvenile Justice
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court
    • 2 March 2012
    ... ... 602, 603, 29 S.E. 321, 321 (1898); see also Miller v. International Union of United Brewery, etc. Workers of ... ...
  • Capital Investors Co. v. Executors of Morrison's Estate
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • 29 September 1978
    ...either fraud or breach of a fiduciary duty is requisite to the imposition of a constructive trust. Miller v. International Union of Brewery Workers, 187 Va. 889, 48 S.E.2d 252 (1948); Porter v. Shaffer, 147 Va. 921, 133 S.E. 614 (1926). While there is persuasive authority that unjust enrich......
  • Anderson v. Stephens
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • 11 May 1989
    ...constructive trust because of Franklin's fraudulent conduct. 643 F.Supp. at 390; 652 F.Supp. at 168, citing Miller v. Int'l Union of United Brewery, 187 Va. 889, 48 S.E.2d 252 (1948). The district court reasoned that it would be more equitable to distribute the funds pro rata rather than ha......
  • Cavalier Poodle Club v. Cavalier Poodle Club
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court
    • 7 March 1966
    ... ... Packard Norfolk, Inc. v. Miller, 198 Va. 557, 95 S.E.2d 207; Barnes v. Craig, 202 Va. 229, ... International Union of United Brewery, 187 Va. 889, 48 S.E.2d 252, the ... ...
  • Get Started for Free
1 books & journal articles
  • 13.7 Restitution
    • United States
    • Virginia CLE Contract Law in Virginia (Virginia CLE) Chapter 13 Remedies for Breach of Contract
    • Invalid date
    ...289 Va. 162, 767 S.E.2d 459 (2015).[378] Id. at 177, 767 S.E.2d at 467.[379] Miller v. International Union of United Brewery Workers, 187 Va. 889, 897-98, 48 S.E.2d 252, 256 (1948); Crestar Bank v. Williams, 250 Va. 198, 204, 462 S.E.2d 333, 335 (1995).[380] Rash v. Hilb, Rogal & Hamilton C......