Edwards v. United Stone & Allied Products Workers

137 S.E.2d 632, 220 Ga. 183, 1964 Ga. LEXIS 483, 56 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2796
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedJuly 14, 1964
Docket22456; 22457
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 137 S.E.2d 632 (Edwards v. United Stone & Allied Products Workers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Edwards v. United Stone & Allied Products Workers, 137 S.E.2d 632, 220 Ga. 183, 1964 Ga. LEXIS 483, 56 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2796 (Ga. 1964).

Opinion

Almand, Justice.

The judgment under review in the main bill of exceptions is one sustaining the general demurrers to a six-count petition seeking legal and equitable relief. The cross bill of exceptions assigns error on the making of the United Stone & Allied Products Workers of America, AFL-CIO, CLC, a party defendant in error.

Milton Edwards and eight other named persons brought this action in their individual capacity and as class representatives of the members of a voluntary association operating as a labor union under the name of Local Union No. 147, Tate, Nelson and Marble Hill, Georgia, United Stone & Allied Products Workers of America, AFL-CIO, CLC. The named defendants were a voluntary association, the United Stone & Allied Products Workers of America, AFL-CIO, CLC, and certain named individuals [184]*184as members of such organization, one of whom was an official of such organization. It was alleged that prior to June, 1962, the voluntary association, hereinafter referred to as “Local 147,” possessed certain real and personal property which was derived wholly from contributions, dues and fees paid by the members of Local 147; that the defendant Scott, President of the defendant United Stone Workers, AFL-CIO, CLC, hereinafter referred to as the “International Union,” with other named defendants seized and assumed control and custody of all the property and assets of Local 147, and denied the petitioners and the class they represent, the members of Local 147, the use and benefit of such assets. Their prayers were for (a) an injunction as to the disposition of the local property and assets; (b) a receivership; (c) an accounting; and (d) damages.

The petitioners subsequently amended their petition. The general demurrers of the individual defendants to the amended petition were sustained with leave granted the plaintiffs to amend within a stated period of time. During the granted period the plaintiffs filed an amendment in which they substituted a six-count petition for the first amended petition in its entirety.

The six-count petition names the same parties as contained in the original petition. In general the six counts all allege that: petitioners are members of Local 147 and represent all of the class who are members of the Local other than the named individuals who are acting on behalf of the International Union; that prior to June 28, 1962, Local 147 owned and possessed certain listed items of real and personal property which were derived from the dues, contributions and moneys paid by the members of Local 147; that the individual defendants acting with the International Union have seized possession of all the assets of Local 147 and converted such assets to their own use and the plaintiffs have been denied the enjoyment and use of such properties. The only difference in the several counts is that two counts charge that Local 147 has ceased to exist and two counts charge that the acts of the defendants have interfered with and paralyzed the operation of Local 147, and the differences in the prayers for relief. The general demurrers to each count on the grounds that (a) the petition fails to set forth a cause of action; [185]*185(b) fails to set forth any ground of equitable relief; and (c) fails to show a basis for any relief, legal or equitable, were sustained. The general demurrer to all counts except No. 4, on the ground that the petitioners as members of Local 147 could not sue themselves as members of the International Union, was also sustained.

The plaintiffs assign error on the order sustaining the general demurrers to the first amended petition. During the period in which leave to amend was granted, the plaintiffs filed the amended six-count petition in which they substituted this petition in lieu of the original amended petition. By such action they voluntarily withdrew their original amended petition and it no longer constituted an in-court pleading. In such a situation they are not in a position to assert that the sustaining of the general demurrers was error. Such action constituted a waiver or estoppel to claim the order was erroneous. Kent v. Barrett Oil Co., 217 Ga. 750 (125 SE2d 59).

In the main all of the allegations of the six counts charge that Local 147 on a named date owned and possessed certain properties, real and personal; that such assets resulted from the dues, fees, etc., paid by the members of the Local Union; that certain named individual members of the Local Union acting in conjunction with the International Union and its officers had seized possession and control of all the properties and assets of the Local Union and were using the same for their own use to the exclusion of the members of the Local Union; that their conduct had resulted in causing the Local to either cease to function or prevent its members from carrying on the function of the Local Union. The several prayers of the six-count petition were to restrain the defendants from disposing of the assets of the Local; an accounting; a receiver to be appointed to take charge of the assets; and for damages. The plaintiffs allege that they are members of Local 147 and represent as a class all of the members of the Local except the several defendants who are acting for and with the International Union.

(a) The allegations in the petition are sufficient to show this to be a class action in which the plaintiffs assert that they represent a majority of the members of a voluntary association in which all members have a common interest in the assets of the [186]*186association. Code § 37-1002. O’Jay Spread Co. v. Hicks, 185 Ga. 507 (1) (195 SE 564).

(b) This action is allowable under the provisions of the Act of 1959 (Ga. L. 1959, pp. 44-45; Code Ann. §§ 3-118—3-121), which permits suits against unincorporated associations and provides for service of process on any officer or official member of any branch or local of any organization or association. The petition alleged that the defendant, United Stone & Allied Products Workers of America, AFL-CIO, CLC, carried on its business in Pickens County and one of the individual defendants was an officer and agent of the International Union and the record shows that he was served with the complaint, though no defensive pleading was filed by the International Union. The unincorporated defendant, under the Act of 1959, is properly before the court.

(c) Count No. 3 charges that the defendants are in possession and control of a parcel of real estate on which is located a building that had been used as the meeting hall and headquarters of Local 147. It is alleged that the described real estate was bought from funds wholly contributed by the members of the Local Union, but the defendants have taken possession of such property and are excluding the plaintiffs and the other members of the Local from the use and enjoyment of said realty. Attached to the petition is a copy of a warranty deed to a described tract of improved real estate in which the grantee is Local 147 of the United Stone & Allied Products Workers of America, AFL-CIO, CLC.

The allegations in this count, as against the general demurrers, are sufficient to show that the members of Local 147 have been denied the use and enjoyment of the real estate belonging to the Local Union.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Jeffers v. Belmonte Hills Owners' Ass'n
585 So. 2d 75 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
137 S.E.2d 632, 220 Ga. 183, 1964 Ga. LEXIS 483, 56 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2796, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edwards-v-united-stone-allied-products-workers-ga-1964.