Appeal, No. 255, Jan. T., 1951, from decree of Court of Common Pleas No. 1 of Philadelphia County, Dec. T., 1950, No. 793, in case of Richard J. Tamagno and Frank M. Kitson, trading as Kitson's Cafe Superior v. Waiters and Waitresses Union, Local No. 301, et al. Record remanded and injunction dissolved.
Richard H. Markowitz, with him Louis H. Wilderman, for appellants.
I. Herbert Rothenberg, for intervenors, appellees.
Before Stern, C.j., Stearne, Jones, Bell, Chidsey and Arnold, JJ.
OPINION BY MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HORACE STERN
In December, 1950, the court below issued a preliminary injunction and in June, 1951, a permanent injunction against the defendant Waiters and Waitresses Union, Local No. 301, an unincorporated association, enjoining them from continuing a strike which they had commenced against the complainants, from picketing, whether peacefully or otherwise, the premises of the complainants, and from threatening, molesting, or assaulting the complainants or their employes. The complainants were Richard J. Tamagno and Frank M. Kitson, partners operating a restaurant. The court found as facts that the strike was called and the picketing prosecuted for the purpose of compelling the complainants to force their employes to join the defendant union. The court further found that the complainants employed 43 persons, only 11 of whom went out on strike, and that the union did not represent a majority of the complainants' employes. The court also found that the pickets harassed and threatened the complainants' customers, abused and derided the complainants employes by hurling at them profane epithets, and maintained a closely knit picket line making it impossible for the employes to enter or leave the premises except by physically forcing their way through the line.
Ever since the preliminary decree was issued, more than 2 years ago, the injunction order has been obeyed by the defendants and the strike and the picketing were discontinued.
In September 1951, six months after the entry of the final decree, the complainants sold their restaurant to two persons, Ralph Puppio and Jerry Dugan.
An appeal from the final decree was taken to this court by the defendants but they asked to have the record returned to the court below so that they might petition that court to dissolve the injunction because of
the change in the ownership of the restaurant. Accordingly we remitted the record with direction to the court below to consider the matter and make recommendation to this court. The record has been returned with a recommendation of the court below that the motion to dissolve the injunction be refused. Appellants state that they are now ...