Heyl v. Culinary Alliance, Local 611

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Heyl v. Culinary Alliance, Local 611

8 A.2d 809, 126 N.J. Eq. 320, 1939 N.J. LEXIS 613, 5 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 933

DecidedOctober 26, 1939

StatusPublished

This text of 8 A.2d 809 (Heyl v. Culinary Alliance, Local 611) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Heyl v. Culinary Alliance, Local 611, 8 A.2d 809, 126 N.J. Eq. 320, 1939 N.J. LEXIS 613, 5 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 933 (N.J. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Complainant is the owner and operator of a restaurant of the type commonly known as a “diner.” On November 21st, 1938, such of her employes as were members of the defendant union walked out. Picketing immediately followed. Chancery, on the filing of complainant’s bill for injunction and the submission of proofs, allowed an order to show cause and on the return thereof found that complainant had employed new workers to take the place of all the strikers, that the business was being continued normally and that consequently there was no longer a strike, whereupon it issued a restraint pendente lile. The appeal is from that restraint order.

*321 The case is subject to the comments and to the same disposition as are being made concurrently herewith in Kitty Kelly Shoe Corp. v. United Retail, &c., Local 108, 126 N. J. Eq. 318.

The order under appeal will be reversed and the cause remanded.

For affirmance — None.

For reversal — The Chiee-Justice, Paekee, Case, Bodine, Donges, Hehee, Peeskie, Postee, Heteield, Deae, Wells, WolesKeil, Raeeeety, Hague, JJ. 14.

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

Per Curiam.

Complainant is the owner and operator of a restaurant of the type commonly known as a “diner.” On November 21st, 1938, such of her employes as were members of the defendant union walked out. Picketing immediately followed. Chancery, on the filing of complainant’s bill for injunction and the submission of proofs, allowed an order to show cause and on the return thereof found that complainant had employed new workers to take the place of all the strikers, that the business was being continued normally and that consequently there was no longer a strike, whereupon it issued a restraint pendente lile. The appeal is from that restraint order.

*321 The case is subject to the comments and to the same disposition as are being made concurrently herewith in Kitty Kelly Shoe Corp. v. United Retail, &c., Local 108, 126 N. J. Eq. 318.

The order under appeal will be reversed and the cause remanded.

For affirmance — None.

For reversal — The Chiee-Justice, Paekee, Case, Bodine, Donges, Hehee, Peeskie, Postee, Heteield, Deae, Wells, WolesKeil, Raeeeety, Hague, JJ. 14.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 A.2d 809, 126 N.J. Eq. 320, 1939 N.J. LEXIS 613, 5 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 933, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heyl-v-culinary-alliance-local-611-nj-1939.