The Hutchinson Sanitary Plumbing & Heating Company v. Local Union No. 363 Journeymen Plumbers

• Decision Date: 06 July 1912
• Docket Number: 17,746
• Citation: 87 Kan. 671,125 P. 14
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court
• Parties: THE HUTCHINSON SANITARY PLUMBING & HEATING COMPANY, Appellee, v. LOCAL UNION NO. 363 JOURNEYMEN PLUMBERS et al., Appellants

125 P. 14

87 Kan. 671

THE HUTCHINSON SANITARY PLUMBING & HEATING COMPANY, Appellee, v. LOCAL UNION NO. 363 JOURNEYMEN PLUMBERS et al., Appellants

No. 17,746

Supreme Court of Kansas

July 6, 1912

Decided July, 1912.

Appeal from Reno district court.

Appeal dismissed.

SYLLABUS

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.

INJUNCTION--Controversy Ended--Appeal Dismissed. Plaintiff sued to enjoin defendants from entering premises where plaintiff's employees were at work completing certain contracts for plumbing and steam fitting, and by threats and force inducing them to quit work. On a motion to vacate the temporary injunction the court vacated the order as to all except two of the defendants. All the defendants appealed. Before the controversy reached this court, the plaintiff completed the contracts referred to in the petition. Held, that the question of the right of members of a labor union to use lawful means to induce nonmembers to quit work for employers with whom the union may be at variance is not involved in the case, and that in view of the completion of plaintiff's contracts and the ending of any controversy between the parties there is nothing left for the court to decide, and the appeal is therefore dismissed.

George A. Neeley, of Hutchinson, for the appellants.

W. G Fairchild, and H. S. Lewis, both of Hutchinson, for the appellee.

OPINION

PORTER, J.:

This is an appeal from an order modifying a temporary injunction. Plaintiff brought suit to restrain Local Union No. 363 Journeymen Plumbers, and eleven individual members of the union, from entering upon certain premises in the city of Hutchinson where plaintiff had contracts for doing plumbing and steam fitting, and from interfering with its employees and using threats or force to induce them to quit work. The district judge being absent from the county when the suit was filed, a temporary injunction was granted by the probate judge. Upon a hearing of a motion to vacate the injunction the district court made an order vacating the injunction as to all the appellants except Albert Morrow and Willard Morrow. From this order all the defendants appeal. The hearing to vacate the temporary injunction was upon affidavits and oral testimony.

The appellants have presented a number of propositions, which, it is contended, show such error as to require a reversal. These propositions are: First, that it was error to enjoin them from entering upon premises in which plaintiff had no right or title; second, that it was error to enjoin a naked trespass; third, that it was error to enjoin from interfering with appellee's agents, employees, or tools; fourth, that it was error to suspend the injunction as to certain of the defendants. As to the first two contentions, the injunction did not enjoin a naked trespass, nor did it enjoin the mere entering of premises owned by persons other than plaintiff. The whole order must be read together, and thus read it enjoined defendants from entering upon certain premises and by means of threats and force inducing plaintiff's employees to quit work.

As to the fourth contention, we are unable to discover how any of the defendants except the two Morrows can complain of the order. All the defendants moved to vacate the injunction. The court granted the motion except as to the only defendants against whom there was evidence to sustain the averments of the petition. Each...