Puget Sound Traction, Light & Power Co. v. Lawrey

• Decision Date: 23 January 1913
• Docket Number: 2,254.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington
• Parties: PUGET SOUND TRACTION, LIGHT & POWER CO. v. LAWREY et al.

202 F. 263

PUGET SOUND TRACTION, LIGHT & POWER CO. v. LAWREY et al.

No. 2,254.

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Northern Division.

January 23, 1913

James B. Howe, A. J. Falknor, and Hugh A. Tait, all of Seattle Wash., for complainant.

Brady &amp Rummens, of Seattle, Wash., for respondents.

CUSHMAN District Judge.

This matter is now before the court, after hearing had, upon the sufficiency of certain pleas to the court's jurisdiction. The bill of complaint alleges that complainant is a Massachusetts corporation, and that the respondents are citizens of the United States and the state of Washington and charges a conspiracy on the part of respondents to prevent the operation of certain coal mines belonging to the complainant; and in carrying out this design, the respondents, it is alleged, had and would, unless restrained continue the use of violent means, including the use of coercion and systematic assaults upon and threats against complainant's workmen, in order to induce such workmen to quit their employment, and in order to force complainant to employ respondents, or men belonging to a certain union.

A restraining order was heretofore issued, directed to the respondents and 'all other persons who shall have knowledge of the making of this order. ' Thereafter, upon the filing of affidavits accusing certain persons, not named in the original bill, with having, with knowledge of the restraining order, violated the same, an order was made requiring such persons to show cause why they should not be attached for contempt.

Pleas to the court's jurisdiction are urged, upon the grounds that certain respondents are not and were not inhabitants of the state of Washington at the time suit was begun, but were inhabitants of Alaska, and that others of respondents were and are aliens. The jurisdiction is further challenged by those parties against whom the show-cause or contempt order runs, upon the ground that such order is collateral to a suit in equity between private parties, and not authorized or prosecuted by the government of the United States.

At the time of the hearing upon the pleas, complainant was allowed to dismiss as to those respondents alleged to be inhabitants of the territory of Alaska. Such parties had not been served with process.

Complainant relies on the following authorities: Horn v. Lockhart, 17 Wall. 570, 21 L.Ed. 657; Barney v. Baltimore, 6 Wall. 280, 18 L.Ed. 825; Shields v. Barrow, 17 How. 130, 15 L.Ed. 158; Hicklin v. Marco (9th Circuit) 56 F. 549, 6 C.C.A. 10; Mason v. Dullagham, 82 F. 689, 27 C.C.A. 296; Hopkins v. Oxley Stave Co., 83 F. 912, 28 C.C.A. 99; Tug River Coal & Salt Co. v. Brigel, 86 F. 818, 30 C.C.A. 415; Barrow S.S. Co. v. Kane, 170 U.S. 100, 18 Sup.Ct. 526, 42 L.Ed. 964; Smith v. Consumers' Cotton Oil Co., 86 F. 359, 30 C.C.A. 103; Re Hohorst, 150 U.S. 653, 14 Sup.Ct. 221, 37 L.Ed. 1211; Delaware, etc., R. Co. v. Frank (C.C.) 110 F. 689; North Carolina Mining Co. v. Westfeldt (C.C.) 151 F. 290; Barnes & Co. v. Berry (C.C.) 156 F. 72; Ladew v. Tennessee Copper Co. (C.C.) 179 F. 245; Irving v. Joint Dist. Council, etc. (C.C.) 180 F. 896; Ex parte Lennon, 166 U.S. 548, 17 Sup.Ct. 658, 41 L.Ed. 1110; Ex parte Richards (C.C.W. Va.) 117 F. 658; Blake v. Nesbet (D.C. Mo.) 144 F. 279, 282; Employers' Teaming Company v. Teamsters' Joint Council (C.C. Ill.) 141 F. 679; Christensen Engineering Company v. Westinghouse Air Brake Co., 135 F. 774, 778, 68 C.C.A. 476; Conkey Co. v. Russell (C.C.) 111 F. 417; O'Brien v. People, 216 Ill. 354, 75 N.E. 108.

The following authorities are relied upon by the respondents: Gompers v. Buck's Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418, 31 Sup.Ct. 492, 55 L.Ed. 797, 34 L.R.A. (N.S.) 874; In re Reese, 107 F. 942, 47 C.C.A. 87; In re Nevitt, 54 C.C.A. 622-632, 117 F. 448-458; Bessette v. W. B. Conkey Co., 194 U.S. 324-338, 24 Sup.Ct. 665, 48 L.Ed. 997; S. Anargyros v. Anargyros & Co. (C.C.) 191 F. 208; 9 Cyc. 35, subd. B.

The object sought by the bill being an injunction forbidding tortious acts in pursuance of a conspiracy, the liability of the respondents is several, as well as joint, and no particular defendant is a necessary party to the suit. Therefore, treating the allegations of the pleas that such parties were inhabitants of Alaska as tantamount to alleging that they were citizens thereof, as they are clearly not indispensable parties, they were properly dismissed and jurisdiction retained as to the other parties. Horn v. Lockhart, 17 Wall. 570, 21 L.Ed. 657; Hicklin v. Marco, 56 F. 549, 6 C.C.A. 10 (C.C.A. 9th Circuit).

The mere fact that both citizens of Washington and aliens are joined as respondents will not deprive the court of jurisdiction. The court has jurisdiction under the statute of controversies between 'citizens of different states' and controversies between 'citizens of a state and foreign states, citizens or subjects. ' As the court would have jurisdiction of a suit by complainant, a Massachusetts corporation, against respondents, citizens of Washington, and would have jurisdiction of a suit by complainant against respondents who are aliens, the mere joining of the citizen and alien respondents in one suit will not deprive the court of jurisdiction. To retain jurisdiction comes within the reason of the rule. To deny it would violate the reason of the rule.

Regarding the plea of those parties against whom the show-cause order runs for the alleged violation of the restraining order, they were not named in the original bill, but the restraining order was broad enough to include them, running, as it did, against all persons having knowledge of the order.

It is clear that, as the contempt order was sued out in this suit by the...