Schwartz v. Cigar Makers International Union

Michigan Supreme Court

Schwartz v. Cigar Makers International Union

189 N.W. 55, 219 Mich. 589, 1922 Mich. LEXIS 833

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 20, 1922

DocketDocket No. 2

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 189 N.W. 55 (Schwartz v. Cigar Makers International Union) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Schwartz v. Cigar Makers International Union, 189 N.W. 55, 219 Mich. 589, 1922 Mich. LEXIS 833 (Mich. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Clark, J.

Plaintiffs, manufacturers of cigars, filed this bill to enjoin picketing by defendants’ striking employees. The unions into which the employees were organized were also made defendants. Defendants filed a cross-bill seeking specific performance of a claimed agreement for hiring between the parties. Defendants had decree.

The facts are stated sufficiently in Schwartz v. Wayne Circuit Judge, 217 Mich. 384, and it follows from what we there said that defendants are not entitled to relief on their cross-bill. And under the following authorities plaintiffs should have had decree: Beck v. Protective Union, 118 Mich. 497 (42 L. R. A. 407, 74 Am. St. Rep. 421); Ideal Manfg. Co. v. Wayne Circuit Judge, 139 Mich. 92; Ideal Manfg. Co. v. Ludwig, 149 Mich. 133 (119 Am. St. Rep. 656); Escanaba Manfg. Co. v. Labor Council, 160 Mich. 656; Baldwin v. Liquor Dealers Ass’n, 165 Mich. 98; Baltic Mining Co. v. Houghton Circuit Judge, 177 Mich. 632; In re Langell, 178 Mich. 305; Clarage v. Luphringer, 202 Mich. 612; American Steel Foundries v. Tri-City Central Trades Council, U. S. Adv. Ops. 1921-22, 103.

Reversed. Plaintiffs may have decree for the relief they prayed, with costs.

Fellows, C. J., and Wiest, McDonald, Bird, Sharpe, Moore, and Steere, JJ., concurred.

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

Clark, J.

Plaintiffs, manufacturers of cigars, filed this bill to enjoin picketing by defendants’ striking employees. The unions into which the employees were organized were also made defendants. Defendants filed a cross-bill seeking specific performance of a claimed agreement for hiring between the parties. Defendants had decree.

The facts are stated sufficiently in Schwartz v. Wayne Circuit Judge, 217 Mich. 384, and it follows from what we there said that defendants are not entitled to relief on their cross-bill. And under the following authorities plaintiffs should have had decree: Beck v. Protective Union, 118 Mich. 497 (42 L. R. A. 407, 74 Am. St. Rep. 421); Ideal Manfg. Co. v. Wayne Circuit Judge, 139 Mich. 92; Ideal Manfg. Co. v. Ludwig, 149 Mich. 133 (119 Am. St. Rep. 656); Escanaba Manfg. Co. v. Labor Council, 160 Mich. 656; Baldwin v. Liquor Dealers Ass’n, 165 Mich. 98; Baltic Mining Co. v. Houghton Circuit Judge, 177 Mich. 632; In re Langell, 178 Mich. 305; Clarage v. Luphringer, 202 Mich. 612; American Steel Foundries v. Tri-City Central Trades Council, U. S. Adv. Ops. 1921-22, 103.

Reversed. Plaintiffs may have decree for the relief they prayed, with costs.

Fellows, C. J., and Wiest, McDonald, Bird, Sharpe, Moore, and Steere, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

189 N.W. 55, 219 Mich. 589, 1922 Mich. LEXIS 833, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schwartz-v-cigar-makers-international-union-mich-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack