The Court of Industrial Relations v. The Charles Wolff Packing Company
Decision Date | 06 October 1923 |
Docket Number | 23,702 |
Citation | 219 P. 259,114 Kan. 304 |
Parties | THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, Plaintiff, v. THE CHARLES WOLFF PACKING COMPANY, Defendant |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided July, 1923.
Original proceedings in mandamus. Opinion ordering mandate of the supreme court of the United States spread of record, and modifying judgment in obedience thereto, filed October 6 1923. Writ allowed.
Motion denied.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS IN MANDAMUS--Original Opinion Filed October 8, 1921--Appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States--Mandate Filed June 23, 1923--Reversed in Part--Judgment in Obedience to Mandate. The mandate of the supreme court of the United States is ordered spread of record. In obedience to that mandate, the orders of the court of industrial relations fixing or relating to the wages that shall be paid by the Charles Wolff Packing Company are stricken out of the judgment of this court. A peremptory writ of mandamus is directed to be issued commanding the Charles Wolff Packing Company to put into effect those parts of the order of the court of industrial relations not affected by the judgment of the United States supreme court.
Charles B. Griffith, attorney-general, John G. Egan, assistant attorney-general, Baxter D. McClain, and Randall C. Harvey, both of Topeka, for the plaintiff; Chester I. Long, and Austin M. Cowan, both of Wichita, of counsel.
D. R. Hite, of Topeka, for the defendant; John S. Dean, and Harry W. Colmery, both of Topeka, of counsel.
OPINION
Two opinions have been filed in this action, one on October 8, 1921 (Court of Industrial Relations v. Packing Co., 109 Kan. 629, 201 P. 418), and one on June 10, 1922 (Court of Industrial Relations v. Packing Co., 111 Kan. 501, 207 P. 806). Error therefrom was taken to the supreme court of the United States. The case has been decided by that court, and the mandate and opinion thereof have been received. The plaintiff moves that the mandate be spread of record; that those parts of the order of the court of industrial relations numbered 2, 4, 11, 17, and 18 which relate to the fixing of wages be stricken out; and that a peremptory writ of mandamus issue commanding the defendant to put into effect the remainder of those orders, and to put into effect the following parts of the order of the court of industrial relations:
The defendant moves that the judgment of this court be reversed; that the application for a writ of mandamus be denied; and that the court determine either for itself or through a commissioner, the expense, loss, and damage sustained by the defendant in resisting the order made by the court of industrial relations and in prosecuting its writ of error to the supreme court of the United States; and that upon such expense, loss and damage being ascertained, judgment be rendered against the plaintiff therefor.
The differences between the plaintiff and the defendant arise out of the interpretation of the opinion of the supreme court of the United States. That opinion discusses wages and strikes. The court said:
"We are considering the validity of the Act as compelling the employer to pay the adjudged wages, and as forbidding the employees to combine against working and receiving them." (43 S.Ct. 630, 635, 262 U.S. 522, 67 L.Ed. 1103.)
The concluding paragraphs of that opinion are as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Chas. Wolff Packing Co. v. Court of Indus. Relations of Kansas, s. 207
...a peremptory writ of mandamus commanding obedience to what remained of the last paragraphs. Court of Industrial Relations v. Charles Wolff Packing Co., 114 Kan. 304, 219 P. 259. On a rehearing, the court modified that judgment by awarding a peremptory writ of mandamus to compel obedience to......
-
Dorchy v. State of Kansas
...the Court of Industrial Relations under review remains in force in so far as it regulates hours of labor and weekly rest periods. 114 Kan. 304, 219 Pac. 259. The judgment then entered was modified November 10, 1923, upon a rehearing.3 The relation of section 19 to the provisions held invali......