Ryan v. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen

Montana Supreme Court

Ryan v. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen

396 P.2d 113, 144 Mont. 374, 1964 Mont. LEXIS 138

CourtMontana Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 16, 1964

Docket10479

StatusPublished

This text of 396 P.2d 113 (Ryan v. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Montana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ryan v. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, 396 P.2d 113, 144 Mont. 374, 1964 Mont. LEXIS 138 (Mo. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

DISTRICT JUDGE VICTOR H. FALL,

sitting in place of Mr. Justice Doyle, delivered the Opinion of the Court.

This action was brought by the Montana Bar Association against the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, a number of non-resident attorneys and individuals and three railroads. The railroads appeared but took no active part and apparently were joined as nominal defendants.

The appellant charged the defendants, except the railroads, with having formed a conspiracy having for its purpose the unauthorized practice of law in Montana and with having operated under such plan for some time prior thereto. An Order to Show Cause was issued and an extensive hearing had thereon. The facts disclosed were essentially the same as in Hildebrand v. State Bar of California, 36 Cal.2d 504, 225 P.2d 508; Doughty v. Grills, 37 Tenn.App. 63, 260 S.W.2d 379; In re Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, 13 Ill.2d 391, 150 N.E.2d 163, and the recently (1964) decided case of Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Virginia State Bar, 372 U.S. 905, 83 Sup.Ct. 719, 9 L.Ed.2d 715, and it is felt that it is not necessary to detail them here.

By stipulation of all counsel, the record made at the hearing just mentioned was submitted as a basis for final determination of the action. Pursuant thereto the court below made Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and issued an injunction restraining certain defendants from performing acts found to be in violation of the Canons of Ethics and of the right to practice law. This appeal followed and appellant assigned as error the inadequacy of the decree so granted.

In view of the ruling in the case of Brotherhood of Railroad *376 Trainmen v. Virginia State Bar, supra, decided since submission of the present appeal, it appears that the decree of the lower court was broader than the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States would justify rather than inadequate as the appellant claims and hence this appeal should be dismissed. Each party to bear its own costs.

It is so ordered.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE JAMES T. HARRISON, and MR. JUSTICES CASTLES, JOHN C. HARRISON and ADAIR, concur.

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

DISTRICT JUDGE VICTOR H. FALL,

sitting in place of Mr. Justice Doyle, delivered the Opinion of the Court.

This action was brought by the Montana Bar Association against the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, a number of non-resident attorneys and individuals and three railroads. The railroads appeared but took no active part and apparently were joined as nominal defendants.

The appellant charged the defendants, except the railroads, with having formed a conspiracy having for its purpose the unauthorized practice of law in Montana and with having operated under such plan for some time prior thereto. An Order to Show Cause was issued and an extensive hearing had thereon. The facts disclosed were essentially the same as in Hildebrand v. State Bar of California, 36 Cal.2d 504, 225 P.2d 508; Doughty v. Grills, 37 Tenn.App. 63, 260 S.W.2d 379; In re Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, 13 Ill.2d 391, 150 N.E.2d 163, and the recently (1964) decided case of Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Virginia State Bar, 372 U.S. 905, 83 Sup.Ct. 719, 9 L.Ed.2d 715, and it is felt that it is not necessary to detail them here.

By stipulation of all counsel, the record made at the hearing just mentioned was submitted as a basis for final determination of the action. Pursuant thereto the court below made Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and issued an injunction restraining certain defendants from performing acts found to be in violation of the Canons of Ethics and of the right to practice law. This appeal followed and appellant assigned as error the inadequacy of the decree so granted.

In view of the ruling in the case of Brotherhood of Railroad *376 Trainmen v. Virginia State Bar, supra, decided since submission of the present appeal, it appears that the decree of the lower court was broader than the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States would justify rather than inadequate as the appellant claims and hence this appeal should be dismissed. Each party to bear its own costs.

It is so ordered.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE JAMES T. HARRISON, and MR. JUSTICES CASTLES, JOHN C. HARRISON and ADAIR, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

396 P.2d 113, 144 Mont. 374, 1964 Mont. LEXIS 138, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ryan-v-brotherhood-of-railroad-trainmen-mont-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack