Kilby Man. Co. v. Molders' Union

Ohio Court of Appeals

Kilby Man. Co. v. Molders' Union

1 Ohio Law. Abs. 75, 1922 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 202

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 11, 1922

DocketNo. 4452

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1 Ohio Law. Abs. 75 (Kilby Man. Co. v. Molders' Union) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kilby Man. Co. v. Molders' Union, 1 Ohio Law. Abs. 75, 1922 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 202 (Ohio Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

SULLIVAN, J.:

Epitomized Opinion

This case was brought in the Common Pleas and injunction asked to restrain the defendant and its officers, agents and members, from committing the unlawful acts enumerated in the petition. Upon hearing, the judgment of the court was a denial of the prayer of the petition, and no injunction relief was given. Upon procedure in appeal one of the judges granted a temporary injunction.

1. The court decided that while peaceable picketing and peaceably persuading are lawful, if they go beyond, to the extent of using threats, intimidation, violence or other similar acts, the same are unlawful. The case of La France v. Brotherhood, decided in 1921 by the Court of Appeals of Lucas county, approved and followed. The Appellate Court further states, that from the evidence in the case, a restraining order should issue, enjoining the defendants and each of them, from picketing the homes or lodging places of the plaintiff’s employees, from interfering with or molesting the employees of the plaintiff in going to or from their work, and enjoining them from intimidating, threatening or assaulting, or attempting to do so, the employees of the plaintiff, whether at the plant of plaintiff, or at their homes and lodging places, or in going to or from their work.

2. The prayer of plaintiff’s to restrain picketing at plaintiff’s plant was denied, and defendants were allowed to have thereat four pickets, restricted as to their action and conduct with respect to intimidation, etc., to peaceable and lawful methods.

Under the record, the conduct of the defendants, at the plant alone, is not sufficient to enjoin the lawful use of pickets, within the limits prescribed by law and this finding of the court. Permanent injunction granted and decree for plaintiff, in accordance with above views.

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

SULLIVAN, J.:

Epitomized Opinion

This case was brought in the Common Pleas and injunction asked to restrain the defendant and its officers, agents and members, from committing the unlawful acts enumerated in the petition. Upon hearing, the judgment of the court was a denial of the prayer of the petition, and no injunction relief was given. Upon procedure in appeal one of the judges granted a temporary injunction.

1. The court decided that while peaceable picketing and peaceably persuading are lawful, if they go beyond, to the extent of using threats, intimidation, violence or other similar acts, the same are unlawful. The case of La France v. Brotherhood, decided in 1921 by the Court of Appeals of Lucas county, approved and followed. The Appellate Court further states, that from the evidence in the case, a restraining order should issue, enjoining the defendants and each of them, from picketing the homes or lodging places of the plaintiff’s employees, from interfering with or molesting the employees of the plaintiff in going to or from their work, and enjoining them from intimidating, threatening or assaulting, or attempting to do so, the employees of the plaintiff, whether at the plant of plaintiff, or at their homes and lodging places, or in going to or from their work.

2. The prayer of plaintiff’s to restrain picketing at plaintiff’s plant was denied, and defendants were allowed to have thereat four pickets, restricted as to their action and conduct with respect to intimidation, etc., to peaceable and lawful methods.

Under the record, the conduct of the defendants, at the plant alone, is not sufficient to enjoin the lawful use of pickets, within the limits prescribed by law and this finding of the court. Permanent injunction granted and decree for plaintiff, in accordance with above views.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Ohio Law. Abs. 75, 1922 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 202, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kilby-man-co-v-molders-union-ohioctapp-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack