|
Eagle Glass & Mfg. Co. v. Rowe, 245 U.S. 275 (1917)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Eagle Glass & Mfg. Co. v. Rowe, 245 U.S. 275 (1917)
Eagle Glass & Manufacturing Company v. Rowe No. 23 Submitted December 18, 1916 Decided December 10, 1917 245 U.S. 275
APPEAL FROM AND CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Syllabus
In a suit to restrain alleged concerted wrongful conduct upon the part of officials of a labor union, a temporary injunction should not be granted against those who were not served and did not submit themselves to the jurisdiction.
The bill alleged that the answering defendants had constituted other persons named as defendants their agents and representatives and had assisted and were supporting them in their alleged wrongful conduct. Held, in view of specific denials and supporting affidavits, not rebutted, that the circuit court of appeals did not err in dissolving the temporary injunction.
Where an application for a temporary injunction has been submitted upon affidavits taken ex parte, without opportunity for cross-examination, and without any consent that the court proceed to final determination of the merits, it is error for the circuit court of appeals, upon interlocutory appeal, to direct a dismissal of the bill unless on its face there is no ground for equitable relief.
The plaintiff’s bill set up a contract with its employees identical in form with the contract involved in Hitchman Coal & Coke Co. v. Mitchell, ante,229, and charged defendants with the formation and pursuit of a scheme to "unionize" the plaintiff’s shop by interfering with its employees similar in nature, motive, and methods to the scheme held illegal in that case. Held that the bill stated an equitable cause of action, and that it was error for the circuit court of appeals to dismiss it on interlocutory appeal without affording plaintiff an opportunity to prove the allegations upon final hearing, as against the defendants within the jurisdiction.
219 F. 719 affirmed in part and reversed in part.
The case is stated in the opinion.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Eagle Glass & Mfg. Co. v. Rowe, 245 U.S. 275 (1917) in 245 U.S. 275 245 U.S. 276. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=V7SGQGLZTFT7FUA.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Eagle Glass & Mfg. Co. v. Rowe, 245 U.S. 275 (1917), in 245 U.S. 275, page 245 U.S. 276. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=V7SGQGLZTFT7FUA.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Eagle Glass & Mfg. Co. v. Rowe, 245 U.S. 275 (1917). cited in 1917, 245 U.S. 275, pp.245 U.S. 276. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=V7SGQGLZTFT7FUA.
|