Touchett v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.
| Decision Date | 06 May 1947 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 4374. |
| Parties | TOUCHETT v. AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin |
A. D. Sutherland, of Fond du Lac, Wis., and Walter D. Corrigan, Sr., of Milwaukee, Wis., for plaintiff.
No appearance for defendant.
A most unusual complaint has been filed in this action. Plaintiff, suing for himself and all other persons similarly situated, alleges that defendant owns and controls a series of public utility corporations located in various parts of the United States; that defendant and said corporations have undertaken to give telephone service to the plaintiff and other people of the United States; and that said service is essential to the health, life and welfare of the people and of the plaintiff. It further alleges that defendant and the corporations it owns and controls have for more than twenty days failed to give service and that plaintiff believes such failure will continue for an indefinite period, causing serious injury to the health, welfare, life and economic welfare of the people and of the plaintiff. The prayer of the complaint asks for the following relief: (1) Appointment of a temporary receiver; (2) an order to show cause why said receivership should not be made permanent; and (3) such further orders as may be necessary in the above premises.
Counsel for the plaintiff has appeared before me twice urging that a temporary receiver be appointed without notice. While such proposed action should have been brought to my attention in the form of a separate written motion, I have chosen to overlook that formality, and to pass upon the merits of the application.
Plaintiff's counsel has submitted a brief stating in effect that if notice is given of the application for a temporary receiver, the benefits sought by plaintiff cannot be obtained. Plaintiff's counsel argues that if the court will appoint a temporary receiver, and thus assume jurisdiction, then the ordinary relationship of employer and employee will no longer exist within the meaning of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 101 et seq., and that this court could then proceed in a manner similar to the recent proceedings in the U. S. District Court for the District of Columbia against John L. Lewis. Plaintiff's counsel suggests that this court can determine fair conditions for employment, if necessary by the appointment of a board or committee of three men, which would report its conclusions to the court. Apparently it is contemplated that the court is to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Nesbitt Bellevue Prop. LLC
...is incident to other proceedings in which some form of primary relief is sought”) (collecting cases); accord Touchett v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 71 F.Supp. 671, 672 (E.D.Wisc.1947) (“It is fundamental that a receivership cannot be the primary object of litigation. It is not an end in itself.”)......