Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

BONWIT TELLER & COMPANY PHILADELPHIA v. DISTRICT 65 (06/03/58)

THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA


June 3, 1958

BONWIT TELLER & COMPANY OF PHILADELPHIA
v.
DISTRICT 65, AFL-CIO, RETAIL, WHOLESALE & DEPARTMENT STORE UNION, APPELLANT.

Appeals, Nos. 174 and 204, Jan. T., 1958, from decree of Court of Common Pleas No. 4 of Philadelphia County, Sept. T., 1957, Nos. 2685 and 2686, in case of Bonwit Teller & Company of Philadelphia et al. v. District 65, AFL-CIO, Retail, Wholesale & Department Store Union et al. Decree affirmed.

COUNSEL

M. H. Goldstein, with him Bernard L. Barkan, J. Gordon Logue, and Goldstein and Bakan, for appellants.

Samuel D. Goodis, with him Norman S. Berson, and Folz, Bard, Kamsler, Goodis & Greenfield, for appellee.

Dunstan McNichol, with him Gilfillan, Gilpin & Brehman, for appellee.

Before Jones, C.j., Musmanno, Arnold, Jones and Cohen, JJ.

[ 393 Pa. Page 325]

OPINION PER CURIAM

These are appeals from the granting of a preliminary injunction. The scope of our review upon such an appeal has been so frequently and so recently reiterated as to render unnecessary any reference to authority other than the succinct statement of the applicable rule in Lindenfelser v. Lindenfelser, 385 Pa. 342, 343-344, 123 A.2d 626. The record discloses reasonable grounds for the action of the court below in restraining the defendants preliminarily from doing what appears to be secondary picketing, i.e., picketing ostensibly designed to publicize a labor dispute with another employer at a place distant from the picketing, the principal, if not the sole, effect of which operated against employers between whom and their employees there existed no labor dispute or grievance. The rules of law relied on by the court below in support of its action are neither palpably wrong nor clearly inapplicable as the opinion of President Judge BROWN for the court en banc readily reveals.

Mr. Justice MUSMANNO and Mr. Justice COHEN dissent.

Disposition

Decree affirmed at the appellants' costs.

19580603

© 1998 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.