Thompson v. Boekhout

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Thompson v. Boekhout

249 A.D. 77, 291 N.Y.S. 572, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5037

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 18, 1936

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 249 A.D. 77 (Thompson v. Boekhout) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Thompson v. Boekhout, 249 A.D. 77, 291 N.Y.S. 572, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5037 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinions

Per Curiam.

The order should be affirmed upon the ground that a “ labor dispute ” is not involved in this case within the contemplation of subdivision 10, paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), of section 876-a of the Civil Practice Act. That subdivision is clearly intended to be far reaching, although it is difficult of analysis and construction. It is evident that the Legislature went far in preventing the use of law court machinery to protect property rights from despoliation by persons claiming to have grievances against the property owners. Still, the statute must be read with the rights and claims of the public and of business men in mind, as well as the rights and claims of labor unions. Whatever may be said about the controversies going on while defendant Moyer was an employee of [78]*78plaintiff, when the enjoined acts of defendants were initiated and while they were continuing, plaintiff’s situation was exactly the same as if he had never had an employee. He was, by his own choice —■ a choice which he was entirely free to make —■ conducting a business without hiring help. His business was interfered with to his serious and continuing damage simply because he did not choose to hire a projectionist at a salary named by defendant Moving Picture Operators. We do not reach the constitutional question so ably discussed by our brother Edgcomb in the dissenting opinion, where the facts are stated. We stand entirely upon our conclusion that the Legislature cannot have intended by section 876-a of the Civil Practice Act to prevent one in the position of this plaintiff when this picketing started from invoking the equity powers of the Supreme Court without being compelled to comply with. all the cumbersome and expensive preliminaries prescribed in section 876-a. And the injunction granted furnishes plaintiff his only adequate remedy.

All concur, except Seaks, P. J., and Edgcomb, J., who dissent and vote for reversal on the law and denial of the motion in an opinion by Edgcomb, J. Present — Seabs, P. J., Taylob, Edgcomb, Thompson and Crosby, JJ.

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

Per Curiam.

The order should be affirmed upon the ground that a “ labor dispute ” is not involved in this case within the contemplation of subdivision 10, paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), of section 876-a of the Civil Practice Act. That subdivision is clearly intended to be far reaching, although it is difficult of analysis and construction. It is evident that the Legislature went far in preventing the use of law court machinery to protect property rights from despoliation by persons claiming to have grievances against the property owners. Still, the statute must be read with the rights and claims of the public and of business men in mind, as well as the rights and claims of labor unions. Whatever may be said about the controversies going on while defendant Moyer was an employee of [78]*78plaintiff, when the enjoined acts of defendants were initiated and while they were continuing, plaintiff’s situation was exactly the same as if he had never had an employee. He was, by his own choice —■ a choice which he was entirely free to make —■ conducting a business without hiring help. His business was interfered with to his serious and continuing damage simply because he did not choose to hire a projectionist at a salary named by defendant Moving Picture Operators. We do not reach the constitutional question so ably discussed by our brother Edgcomb in the dissenting opinion, where the facts are stated. We stand entirely upon our conclusion that the Legislature cannot have intended by section 876-a of the Civil Practice Act to prevent one in the position of this plaintiff when this picketing started from invoking the equity powers of the Supreme Court without being compelled to comply with. all the cumbersome and expensive preliminaries prescribed in section 876-a. And the injunction granted furnishes plaintiff his only adequate remedy.

All concur, except Seaks, P. J., and Edgcomb, J., who dissent and vote for reversal on the law and denial of the motion in an opinion by Edgcomb, J. Present — Seabs, P. J., Taylob, Edgcomb, Thompson and Crosby, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D. 77, 291 N.Y.S. 572, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5037, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-boekhout-nyappdiv-1936.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack