Niner v. Hanson

• Decision Date: 16 June 1958
• Docket Number: No. 267,No. 101,101,267
• Citation: 142 A.2d 798,217 Md. 298
• Parties: Edward NINER, etc., et al., and Local, etc., v. Gotthard HANSON.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

Page 298

217 Md. 298

142 A.2d 798

Edward NINER, etc., et al., and Local No. 101, etc.,

v.

Gotthard HANSON.

No. 267.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

June 16, 1958.

Thornton C. Land, Blairstown, N. J. and New York City, and J. Francis Ford, Baltimore (Joseph H. A. Rogan, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellants.

Melvin J. Sykes and Francis D. Murnaghan, Jr., Baltimore (Fred E. Weisgal, Weisgal & Sollins, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.

Before BRUNE, C. J., and HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT and HORNEY, JJ.

HENDERSON, Judge.

These appeals are from a decree of the Chancellor declaring that the complainant, (appellee) Gotthard Hanson, is a member of the defendant union, Local 101, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, and enjoining the defendant (appellant), its officers and agents, from directly or indirectly interfering with the plaintiff's rights as a member of the Local and requiring that he be recognized as a member and issued appropriate evidence of his membership. In an extended opinion, the Chancellor found that Hanson was improperly expelled by the Local, but stated that 'This opinion of course does not preclude the Defendant union or any of its members from preferring charges against the Plaintiff in accordance with the Constitution and By-laws of said union in regard to any alleged infirmities prior to the alleged expulsion of the Plaintiff.' The appellee filed a cross-appeal from this 'adjudication'.

The appellant does not challenge the jurisdiction of the equity court to grant the relief prayed. Nor does it challenge the Chancellor's finding of fact that Hanson's expulsion was not in compliance with the constitution and by-laws of Local 101, although it is strongly contended that he was never eligible for membership. The appellant further contends that the appellee was barred from the relief sought on the grounds of res judicata, estoppel by judgments in prior litigation and by conduct, and by limitations and laches and unclean hands.

The facts are voluminous but may be summarized as follows: Hanson came to this county from Sweden in 1923, and shortly thereafter applied for membership in Local Union 2236 in New York City. He was rejected because he did not have sufficient understanding of the English language, but thereafter came into possession of the union card of one Helgeson, which he used illegally while working on union jobs. There was a conflict in the testimony as to whether or not Helgeson who seems to have returned to Sweden, gave him the card and consented to its illegal use. In any event, Hanson subsequently turned in the card to Local Union 941, located in New Jersey, and received a new card in Helgeson's name which he used. In 1931, he had Helgeson's name changed on the card to the name of Arthur B. Hanson. Local 941 was consolidated into Local 349. Thereafter the officials of that union filed charges against Hanson and others for working below union scale, and he was fined $100, which he then refused to pay and has never paid, although he tendered payment some time prior to the institution of the present suit in 1956.

In 1935, Hanson, during a union membership drive, made application, in his own correct name, to join the Local 101 in Baltimore. He did not answer certain questions propounded in the application form, with reference to prior membership in other Locals of the Brotherhood, and whether he had ever been rejected or suspended by, or indebted to, any other Local. His application was accepted, but a year later he was dropped for nonpayment of dues but was reinstated upon payment of an initiation fee. In 1937 he transferred to Local 132 in Washington, D. C., and in 1938, transferred back to Baltimore on a 'clearance' card.

In 1943 Hanson was elected president of Local 101. At that time Local 101 was under 'trusteeship' and in charge of appointees of the United Brotherhood of Car. Penters and Joiners of America, the parent union with headquarters in Indiana, hereinafter referred to as International. Indeed, Local 101 had been under 'trusteeship' since 1926. Hanson had instigated a movement to obtain autonomy for Local 101 in 1939, and at that time the International had investigated his past record and conveyed information as to the 'infirmities' in his membership to the Local, but no action was taken against him by the Local. Hanson, as the elected president of the Local, sought to obtain possession of the books and records from the International appointee who had been acting as president of the Local, and made efforts to collect some $200,000 of funds claimed to have been embezzled by the appointees of International. A suit was instituted in Indiana by Hanson, as president of Local 101, in 1945, which was settled by payment to Local 101 of the sum of approximately $256,000, Hanson was selected to represent the Local at the convention of the International in Florida held April 22, 1946, and prior to the meeting sent printed circulars to all other Locals of International setting forth its differences with Hutcheson, the general president. At the convention, the Credentials Committee refused to seat Hanson, and the general president took the floor to state in detail, among other matters, how Hanson had misrepresented himself as Helgeson and been fined in New Jersey. The convention thereupon passed a resolution expelling Hanson from International.

On April 26, 1946, Hanson and seven others filed suit in the Circuit Court No. 2 of Baltimore City, as members and officers of Local 101, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, against Hutcheson and twelve others individually and as members and officers of International, praying that the purported action of the convention be declared void, and for an accounting. On the same day, International filed suit in the same court against Hanson and Local 101, praying an injunction against interference with its 'trusteeship'. A hearing was held on a motion to dissolve a temporary injunction obtained by International, at which Hanson testified that he never went under the name of Helgeson, and never knew a man by that name; that he never belonged to Locals 941 or 349, or to any other union except Local 101; that he had never been fined by any local union. The hearing was adjourned, and when resumed a few weeks later, Hanson again took the stand and admitted that his previous testimony was false, and that on the day following the last hearing he had revealed his perjury to counsel, upon being confronted with a prospective witness who could expose him. He further admitted that the statements Hutcheson had made about him before the convention were substantially correct. It was testified that Hanson had revealed at a meeting of the Local, following his revelation to counsel, and his testimony had been false, and had told the full story of the questioned events. Nevertheless, the Local had given him a rising vote of confidence. The appellant contends that this was a 'rump' meeting, and sparsely attended. Hanson was not prosecuted for his admitted perjury. The court refused to dissolve the injunction, and ordered an election of officers to be held. An agreement of settlement was entered into between the Local and International, which was incorporated in a final decree. The agreement, in effect, granted local autonomy to Local 101. It recited that 'The past is to be forgotten and is not to be used as a basis of any further complaint or Court action by Local or International against the other or their members.' It contained a recital that Hanson had been expelled from International. The proposed settlement had been considered by a general meeting of the Local, and counsel for Hanson then stated that the settlement agreement did not resolve the question whether International had properly expelled Hanson, but that Hanson 'still had his own rights in that regard'. However, the Local advised the International that it would recognize the latter's expulsion of Hanson and not 'regard or treat' him as a member. A new president was elected, pursuant to the settlement agreement and decree.

In August, 1947 Hanson individually sued International in Indiana, attacking the expulsion order. He paid into court all back dues and the fine levied in New Jersey. Apparently, the clerk of the court forwarded, or attempted to forward, these payments to Local 101. International defended on the grounds of the alleged infirmities in his membership, his perjury in the Baltimore case, the binding effect of the settlement agreement, and his unclean hands. The trial court found for Hanson and ordered reinstatement. However, on appeal to the Appellate Court of Indiana, Hutcheson v. Hanson, 1951, 121 Ind.App. 546, 98 N.E.2d 688, the court held that the expulsion was void on the ground that International had no individual members, and no authority to interfere with the autonomy of its Locals. But the decree was modified so as to expressly reserve the question of Hanson's right to membership in the Local. Hanson tendered all back dues to the Local union, but they were not accepted, nor was his right to membership recognized. In April, 1948, Hanson brought a libel action against Hutcheson and others in Indiana, which was settled by the payment of a substantial sum of money to Hanson, who executed a release. The suit was thereupon dismissed 'with prejudice'. Hanson also brought two suits for an accounting, which were dismissed, in 1955 and 1956, on the ground that Local 101 was a necessary party. Hanson v. Hutcheson, 7 Cir., 217 F.2d 171, and Hanson v. Hutcheson, Ind.App., 134 N.E.2d 564. Hanson was advised by the then president of Local 101 in 1952, that he was barred from membership under the settlement agreement in 1946. No charges were ever preferred against him by the Local union, although an entry had been made in the Local's official card file, with respect to his membership status: 'Expelled in April, 1946'. This, of...