Sterling Chain Theatres, Inc. v. Central Labor Council of Seattle

• Decision Date: 10 January 1930
• Docket Number: 22178.
• Citation: 283 P. 1081,155 Wash. 217
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: STERLING CHAIN THEATRES, Inc., v. CENTRAL LABOR COUNCIL OF SEATTLE et al.

283 P. 1081

155 Wash. 217

STERLING CHAIN THEATRES, Inc., v. CENTRAL LABOR COUNCIL OF SEATTLE et al.

No. 22178.

Supreme Court of Washington

January 10, 1930

Department 1.

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; A. W. Hawkins, Judge.

Action by the Sterling Chain Theatres, Incorporated, against the Central Labor Council of Seattle and others. From a decree granting certain relief, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Allen &amp Walthew, of Seattle, for appellant.

Roberts Skeel & Holman, of Seattle, amici curiae.

Schwellenbach Merrick & Macfarlane, of Seattle, for respondents.

BEALS J.

Plaintiff, a corporation engaged in the business of operating theaters in the city of Seattle, instituted this action for the purpose of procuring a decree enjoining the defendants from carrying or displaying upon the public streets of the city of Seattle banners or other inscriptions stating that two of the theaters operated by plaintiff were unfair to organized labor. The trial of the action resulted in a decree granting plaintiff certain relief, from which decree plaintiff appeals, claiming that the record in the action entitles it to a decree broader in scope than that granted by the superior court.

Appellant, among other activities, operates in the city of Seattle the Capitol and Colonial Theatres, both located in the block bounded by Third avenue, Pike street, Fourth avenue, and Pine street; the Capitol being on Third avenue and the Colonial on Fourth avenue. Appellant was incorporated in December, 1927, John Danz being one of the three incorporators, and owning approximately 85 per cent. of the voting stock. Mr. Danz has been engaged in business for several years as operator and proprietor of different theaters in the city of Seattle, and during the month of December, 1923, he, together with certain corporations in which he was interested, brought suit against several labor unions and individuals seeking an injunction restraining them from picketing the theaters operated by plaintiffs. This action resulted in the entry of a decree granting the plaintiffs a portion of the relief which they sought, from which decree they appealed to this court. The judgment of the trial court was, by this court sitting en banc, modified by striking therefrom a material portion thereof. Danz v. American Federation of Musicians, 133 Wash. 186, 233 P. 630. On the receipt of the remittitur in the lower court a decree was entered in conformity with the decision of this court, which decree became the law of that case and ever since has been in full force and effect.

Briefly stated, the acts of respondents in this action of which appellant complains consist of the following: The maintenance of men walking a regular beat from points 100 feet north and south of the entrances to appellant's two theaters, above referred to, along the streets bounding the city block in which appellant's two theaters are located. The men so upon patrol bear upon their persons banners or tabards, upon which in large letters are written legends stating that there is a strike on in the two theaters operated by appellant and including the words: 'Stay out. Central Labor Council, Seattle.'

The decree entered in this action by the court below is in the following form:

'This matter regularly coming on to be heard on the 25th day of June, 1929, before the undersigned Judge of the above entitled court for trial on the merits, and the plaintiff having submitted by stipulation the testimony and evidence which it produced upon the hearing for a temporary injunction, and having further produced certain other testimony, and the defendant having submitted by stipulation the testimony and evidence produced on its behalf upon the hearing for a temporary injunction and having submitted no further testimony, and the parties having rested, and counsel having argued the matter at length to the court, and it appearing to the court that the following decree was entered by the above entitled court on December 8, 1925, in words and figures as follows:

"In the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County

"John Danz, Globe Amusement Co., a Corporation, and Acme Theatre Company, a Corporation, Plaintiffs, v. American Federation of Musicians, Local 76; Theo H. Wagner, President and W. J. Douglas, Secy., International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees Local 76 and Moving Picture Operators, Local 154; Hal Cauthon, President; G. E. Johnson, Secretary; H. F. Lampman, Business Agent; Building Service Employees Union Local 6, H. F. O'Brien, President, and John P. Rankin, Secretary; H. F. Lampman, P. R. Adlam, Alice Lord, Anna E. Nemitz et al., Who are Members of Said Local Unions or Some One or More of Them, Hattie W. Titus, Defendants. No. 171060.

"This matter coming on to be heard upon application of the plaintiffs for a judgment or decree as directed by the remittitur of the supreme court, and the plaintiffs being represented by their attorneys, and the defendants by their attorney, and the court being fully advised,

"It is considered, adjudged and decreed that the defendants and each of them be and they hereby are restrained and enjoined as follows:

"1. From in any manner trespassing upon any of the plaintiffs' property.

"2. From in any manner obstructing the free access to or egress from the Colonial Theatre located at 1515 Fourth Avenue, the Star Theatre located at 117 Occidental Avenue, the Florence Theatre located at 512 Second Ave., and the Class A. Theatre located at 1506 Third Avenue, all in the City of Seattle, or any of them, and from obstructing the free passage along the sidewalk in front thereof.

"3. From carrying or wearing upon their persons or otherwise displaying in front of said theatres or any of them, or within one hundred feet thereof any banner, scarf, badge or other insignia bearing any inscription that said theatre or the owner thereof or any of the employees therein is unfair.

"And it is further considered, adjudged and decreed that the intervenors herein and each of them be and they hereby are enjoined from interfering with the defendants or any of them in the free exercise of any right not herein expressly prohibited or enjoined.

"And all parties hereto are hereby enjoined from employing any threat, intimidation or violence or any libelous, slanderous, opprobrious or insulting language or epithets against any of the other parties hereto for any purpose whatsoever. No costs shall be allowed to either party.

"The judgment of this court entered April 22, 1925, is hereby vacated and this judgment entered nunc pro tunc as of the date April 24, 1925.

"Done in open court this 8th day of December, 1925.

"J. T. Ronald, Judge.'

'(Interlineation.) And the court finding that the defendants have at all times consented to the entry of said decree in this cause and the court further that said decree is res adjudicata and determinative of this action.

'And the court being fully advised in the premises, now, therefore,

'It is considered, ordered and adjudged that the above quoted decree be, and the same hereby is adopted and confirmed in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants, and it is further,

'Considered, ordered, adjudged and decreed that the plaintiff be, and it hereby is, otherwise denied the relief sought in this above entitled action, and it is further,

'Considered, adjudged and decreed, that the defendants do have and recover of and from the plaintiff their costs herein to be taxed.

'Exception allowed to plaintiff and defendants.'

Appellant appeals from that portion thereof which restrains the defendants 'from carrying or wearing upon their persons or otherwise displaying in front of said theatres or any of them or within one hundred feet thereof any banner, scarf, badge or other insignia bearing any inscription that said theatre or the owner thereof or any or the employees therein is unfair,' as well as from other portions of the decree which appellant deems erroneous and in violation of its rights.

From the record it appears that the trial court was of the opinion that the decree entered in the prior action between John Danz and the labor unions,...