Oxley Stave Co. v. Coopers' International Union of North America

Decision Date09 March 1896
Docket Number7,284.
Citation72 F. 695
PartiesOXLEY STAVE CO. v. COOPERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA et al.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Kansas

Overmeyer & Mulvane, for complainant.

Getty &amp Hutchings, and Rossington, Smith & Dallas, for defendants.

FOSTER District Judge.

The complainant is a corporation organized under the laws of Missouri, and engaged in the cooperage business at Kansas City, Kan., making barrels, tierces, casks, etc., for packing meat, lard, flour, and other products. The defendants are alleged to be citizens of Kansas. The Coopers' International Union of North America, No. 18, and the Trades Assembly of Kansas City, are voluntary associations, not incorporated. The other defendants are officers and members of said associations. The complainant asks for an injunction against said defendants, restraining and enjoining them from issuing a boycott against the products of its manufactory. It charges 'that the defendant associations are composed of a large number of persons, having their lodges and organizations in all of the trade centers of the United States and other countries, and that said associations and the other defendants, the officers of said societies, have combined, confederated, and conspired together to do said complainant a great and irreparable injury, in this, to wit That complainant has placed in its factory, and is using in its business, machines designed for and used in fitting up and hooping barrels, tierces, casks, etc.; that none of the employes of said complainant are in said conspiracy, or make any objections to complainant's use of said machines, or have any grievances against said complainant whatever; that said defendants have so combined, confederated, and conspired together to demand, and have demanded, of this complainant that it shall discontinue the use of such machines in its plant, and in the manufacture of barrels, on and after the 18th day of January, 1896; and that, upon the refusal of said complainant to so discontinue the use of said machines as aforesaid, they, the said defendants, will cause a boycott to be placed on all packages, casks, barrels, tierces, etc hooped by said machines, and against the trade and business of complainant. ' The bill further alleges, at great length, what action has been taken by defendants in pursuance of said combination and conspiracy to make the boycott effective; 'that said associations passed resolutions, and appointed committees to wait upon this complainant, and demanded that it discontinue the use of said machines, under the penalty of a boycott in case of refusal, and other committees were appointed, and have waited upon the large packing houses who were the chief customers of said complainant, to the extent of many thousands of dollars each year, to wit, the Armour Packing Company, the Jacob Dold Packing Company, Swift & Co., Fowler Sons & Co., Limited, and others, and demanded of said packing companies that they refuse to buy or use said machine-made packages of said complainant, and in case they should refuse said demand, and use said packages, that said defendant associations would cause a boycott to be placed on all products of said packing companies packed in said machine-hooped barrels and packages; that by reason of said demand and threats said packing companies and others have been deterred from making contracts with complainant for its said barrels, tierces, casks, etc., and have been induced to cease the use of the same, through fear of injury to their said business by reason of said threatened boycott; that by reason of said defendant having its associate organizations in all the trade centers, and the great number of members thereof throughout the country, wherever labor organizations and trade unions exist, they have the power to coerce and intimidate persons who would purchase complainant's goods, and thereby work a great and irreparable injury to complainant, of not less than one hundred thousand dollars, for which complainant has no legal redress, as defendants are not pecuniarily responsible,' etc. On the presentation of the bill a temporary restraining order was allowed until the matter of an application for temporary injunction could be heard.

The defendants James A. Cable and William Deal have filed pleas to the jurisdiction of the court, on the ground that they and other members of said associations are not citizens of Kansas, but are citizens of Missouri. From the evidence in the case, these pleas are well taken. It is also objected that the defendant associations cannot be sued as a body, or its members enjoined who are not parties to the record. These objections are also well taken, and the complainant has leave to dismiss as to said parties, and the case stands only against the other defendants named in the bills.

This brings us to the question whether, under the allegations of the bill, which is verified, and the other evidence presented, the complainant is entitled to the relief prayed for. The material allegations of the bill are but partially controverted by the defendants. Indeed, they are substantially admitted. Much testimony was offered to show that barrels hooped by machinery were not as serviceable or as valuable as hand-hooped barrels. It also appears that there is some little difference in the price of such barrels that a skilled workman can hoop 14 to 16 barrels per day by hand, and that the hooping machine does the work of about six or seven men; and that boys or young men, from 16 years upwards, are employed, to some extent, in operating the machines. All of this cuts but little figure in the case. Whether the work of the machine is better or worse than the hand work is not material. The barrels are made and sold as machine work, and a price fixed accordingly, and the customer must decide whether or not he will buy them;...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Lohse Patent Door Company v. Fuelle
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 23, 1908
    ...v. Hayda, 82 P. 1079; Goldgerg v. Union Co., 149 Cal. 429; Loewe v. Federation, 139 F. 71; Brewing Co. v. Hansen, 144 F. 1011; Oxley Stave Co. v. Union, 72 F. 695; Hopkins Oxley Stave Co., 83 F. 912; Sherry v. Perkins, 147 Mass. 212; Vegelahan v. Gunter, 167 Mass. 93; Plant v. Woods, 179 Ma......
  • American Steel & Wire Co. v. Wire Drawers' & Die Makers' Unions Nos. 1 and 3
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio
    • October 18, 1898
    ... ... many operatives who were not members of the union. The plan ... adopted was to organize for the ... 320; U.S. v ... Agler, 62 F. 824; Oxley Stave Co. v. Coopers' ... International Union of North America, 72 F. 695; Id., 28 ... C.C.A. 99, 83 ... ...
  • Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. McConnell
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee
    • August 19, 1897
    ... ... Centennial and International Exposition,' now being held ... at the city of ... the Union may learn, in the way of an object lesson, ... 562, 13 Sup.Ct. 966. See, also, Oxley Stave Co. v ... Coopers' International Union, ... court of appeal affirmed the decision of North, ... J., and held that the court had ... ...
  • Hyatt Chalet Motels, Inc. v. Carpenters Local 1065
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • July 29, 1970
    ...boycott was illegal. There was no suit for recovery of damages caused by any secondary boycott. Similarly in Oxley Stave Co. Coopers' Int'l Union, 72 F. 695 (Mo.1896) the court affirmed the granting of an injunction against a union in another primary boycott case. The Oxley court cited a nu......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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