Mugford v. Mayor, 4.

Citation44 A.2d 745
Decision Date08 January 1946
Docket NumberNo. 4.,4.
PartiesMUGFORD et al. v. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE et al.
CourtCourt of Appeals of Maryland

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Circuit Court No. 2 of Baltimore City; W. Conwell Smith, Chief Judge.

Suit by J. Edwin Mugford and another against the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore and Municipal Chauffeurs, Helpers and Garage Employees Union No. 825, and others, to have an agreement between the city and the labor union declared void and to restrain the city from extending a preferential advantage to the union and for other relief. From a decree granting part of the relief demanded, plaintiffs appeal and defendant moves to dismiss the appeal.

Motion to dismiss appeal overruled and decree affirmed.

Willis R. Jones and Walter H. Buck, both of Baltimore, for appellants.

Simon E. Sobeloff, City Sol., of Baltimore (Lester H. Crowther, Deputy City Sol., and Avrum K. Rifman, Asst. City Sol., both of Baltimore, on the brief), for Mayor & City Council of Baltimore.

Carlyle Barton, of Baltimore (Isidor Roman and Thomas J. Grogan, Jr., both of Baltimore, on the brief), for Municipal Chauffeurs, Helpers and Garage Employees Local Union No. 825.

Before MARBURY, C. J., and DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, GRASON, HENDERSON, and MARKELL, JJ.

GRASON, Judge.

On April 8, 1944, ‘the Department of Public Works of the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, acting for and on behalf of the City of Baltimore,’ entered into an agreement with the Municipal Chauffeurs, Helpers and Garage Employees Local Union No. 825, a subordinate Local Union of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor.

The appellants, as taxpayers, filed their amended bill of complaint on May 19, 1944, in the Circuit Court No. 2 of Baltimore City. The City and the Union were made parties thereto. The amended bill is a document of some length and in it appellants attack the agreement referred to as being null and void and of no legal effect. It prays: (A) That the paper writing dated April 8, 1944, executed by the City and the Union ‘be declared to be void and of no binding effect upon the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore or any of its subordinate officials or Departments'; (B) That the Defendants, the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, the Board of Estimates of Baltimore City, and the Department of Public Works of Baltimore City, ‘be enjoined and restrained from extending any preferential advantage or privilege’ to the Union or to its officers; (C) that the City ‘be enjoined and restrained from making any deductions from the wages or salaries of employees' of the City, for the payment of union dues of such employees to the Union; and (D) for ‘further relief as their case may require’.

The City and the Union, respectively, filed a combined demurrer and answer to the amended bill of complaint, testimony was taken at length, solicitors for the parties heard, and the case submitted for decree. On the 4th day of December, 1944, the Chancellor decreed:

1. That the demurrers filed by the defendants to the amended bill of complaint be and the same are hereby overruled.

2. That the paper writing dated April 8, 1944, executed by the City and the Union ‘be and the same is hereby declared to be invalid.'

3. That the writ of injunction be issued to the end that the City be ‘permanently enjoined and restrained from carrying out the undertakings of said contract of April 8, 1944 and from making and carrying out any other agreement with the Defendant Union granting to such Union and its members, preferential advantages of any character over other employees of the City of Baltimore.'

4. ‘That the prohibition of said writ embrace as well the collection of union dues by the Central Payroll Bureau and the remittance of said dues to the Defendant Union in accordance with the provisions of said contract of April 8, 1944; but shall not forbid the collection and remittance of such dues by the Central Payroll Bureau upon a purely voluntary basis, terminable by any employee at any time in any fuutre contract between the City and the Defendant Union.'

The Chancellor, therefore, plainly and definitely granted the relief prayed by appellants in prayers (A) and (B) of their amended bill of complaint. The agreement in question attacked by appellants was decreed to be invalid,’ and the City was permanently enjoined and restrained from carrying out the undertakings of said contract of April 8, 1944 and from making and carrying out any other agreement with the Defendant Union granting to such Union and its members, preferential advantages of any character over other employees of the City of Baltimore.’ From this decree appellants bring this appeal.

Neither the City nor the Union appealed from the decree, and as the decree granted the relief prayed for by the appellants, the agreement of April 8, 1944, is not before this Court. It needs no authorities to support the proposition that one cannot appeal from a decree wherein the relief he prays for has been granted. And no cross appeal having been taken, the ruling of the Chancellor that the agreement is invalid cannot be reviewed on this appeal.

There appears in the record an agreement entered into by the City and the Union, which is dated the 17th of November, 1944. This agreement was not dealt with in the proceedings before the Chancellor, and manifestly it cannot be considered here.

The amended bill of complaint challenged the power of the City to make an agreement recognizing a union as the collective bargaining agency for its members, consisting of street-cleaners and other employees of the City. The Chancellor struck down the agreement before him, and in the absence of a cross-appeal his ruling is the law of the case. Moreover, it was admitted by the appellees, in argument, that the Department of Public Works could not bind the City, by contract, in any particular relative to hours, wages or working conditions, either as to union employees, or as to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
55 cases
  • City of San Diego v. American Federation of State etc. Employees
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • May 28, 1970
    ...567, 207 N.E.2d 427, 430; State Board of Regents v. United Packing House, etc., Iowa, 175 N.W.2d 110, 112; Mugford v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 185 Md. 266, 44 A.2d 745; Minneapolis Fed. of Teachers, Local 59 v. Obermeyer, 275 Minn. 347, 147 N.W.2d 358, 366; City of Springfield v......
  • Local 2238 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO v. Stratton
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court
    • February 2, 1989
    ...AFSCME, 571 S.W.2d 616 (Ky.1978); School Comm. v. Easton Teachers Ass'n, 398 A.2d 1220 (Me.1979) (per curiam); Mugford v. Mayor of Baltimore, 185 Md. 266, 44 A.2d 745 (1945); Massachusetts Bay Transp. Auth. v. Labor Relations Comm'n, 356 Mass. 563, 254 N.E.2d 404 (1970); Ottawa County v. Ja......
  • Maryland Classified Emp. Ass'n, Inc. v. Anderson
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • December 7, 1977
    ...12 More than thirty years ago our predecessors gave clear indication of fundamental accord with this position. In Mugford v. City of Baltimore, 185 Md. 266, 44 A.2d 745, decided November 28, 1945 (the decretal order was modified on denial of rehearing on January 8, 1946), "the sole and only......
  • Bennett v. Gravelle
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • January 19, 1971
    ...v. American Fed'n of State, County and Municipal Employees, 8 Cal.App.3d 308, 87 Cal.Rptr. 258 (1970); Mugford v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 185 Md. 266, 44 A.2d 745 (1945). This common law rule has been adopted or confirmed statutorily by twenty (20) states and the federal govern......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Petting the Infamous Yellow Dog: the Seattle High School Teachers Union and the State, 1928-1931
    • United States
    • Seattle University School of Law Seattle University Law Review No. 23-02, December 1999
    • Invalid date
    ...Organization v. City of Dallas, 198 S.W.2d 143, 145 (Tex. App. 1946) (all city employees); Mugford v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 44 A.2d 745 (Md. 1945) (mostly street cleaners); City of Jackson v. McLeod, 24 So. 2d 319 (Miss. 1946), cert. denied, 328 U.S. 863 (1946) (police); King......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT