United Bhd. of Carpenters and Joiners of Am., Local No. 101 v. United Slate Tile and Composition Roofers, Damp and Waterproof Workers Ass'n, Local No. 80, s. 48, 49.
| Citation | 29 A.2d 839 |
| Decision Date | 12 January 1943 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 48, 49.,s. 48, 49. |
| Parties | UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL NO. 101 v. UNITED SLATE TILE AND COMPOSITION ROOFERS, DAMP AND WATERPROOF WORKERS ASS'N, LOCAL NO. 80. UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL NO. 544 v. SAME. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Maryland |
Appeals from Circuit Court No. 2 of Baltimore City; George A. Solter, Judge.
Suit by the United Slate Tile and Composition Roofers, Damp and Waterproof Workers Association, Local No. 80, against the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local No. 101, and the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local No. 544 for an injunction. From an order overruling defendant's demurrers to second amended Bill of complaint defendants separately appeal.
Cause remanded.
Before BOND, C. J., and SLOAN, JOHNSON, DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, MARBURY, and GRASON, JJ.
Joseph H. A. Rogan, of Baltimore (J. Francis Ford and Robert P. McGuinn, both of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellants.
W. LeRoy Ortel, of Baltimore (Edwin S. Panetti, of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.
Here are presented two appeals, one by the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local No. 101, and the other by the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local No. 544, from an order of the Circuit Court No. 2 of Baltimore City overruling their demurrers to the second amended bill of complaint filed by the United Slate Tile and Composition Roofers, Damp and Waterproof Workers Association, Local No. 80.
The second amended bill of the Roofers Union prays for an injunction against the Carpenters Unions. The purpose of the suit is to determine the parties who have the right to lay the roofs at the Sparrows Point Housing Project in Baltimore. It is admitted by the parties that the work on this project has been completed.
Under these circumstances, it is clear that there is no ground for the issuance of an injunction with respect to the Sparrows Point Housing Project, even if the complainant might have been entitled to the writ at the time the suit was entered. Injunction is primarily a preventive remedy. Its province is to afford relief against future acts which are against equity and good conscience, and to keep a condition in statu quo, rather than to remedy something which is past or to punish for wrongful acts already committed. Consequently it is a general rule that rights already lost and wrongs already perpetrated cannot be corrected by injunction. It is the condition of things at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chase v. Chase
...(1963); United States v. W. T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 632-633, 73 S.Ct. 894, 897-898, 97 L.Ed. 1303 (1953). Cf. Carpenters v. Roofers, 181 Md. 280, 282, 29 A.2d 839 (1943) (where "it clearly appears to the court that there will not be a continuance . . . (of the conditions giving rise to ......
-
Attorney General v. Anne Arundel County School Bus Contractors Ass'n, Inc.
...have been discontinued or abandoned. State v. Ficker, 266 Md. at 507, 295 A.2d at 235; United Bhd. of Carpenters v. United Slate Tile & Composition Roofers, 181 Md. 280, 282, 29 A.2d 839, 840 (1943). Here the record shows that on 31 March 1976, the Association threatened to withhold transpo......
-
Local No. 80 v. United Bhd. Of Carpenters
...Trades Department; the refusal of this Court to consider their appeal in the case of United Brotherhood of Carpenters et al. v. United Slate Tile and Composition Roofers, 181 Md. 280, 282, 29 A.2d 839, for the reason that the case was then moot; that the same condition is apt to happen in a......