Typothetæ v. Typographical Union No. 6

132 A.D. 921
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 15, 1909
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 132 A.D. 921 (Typothetæ v. Typographical Union No. 6) 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
Typothetæ v. Typographical Union No. 6, 132 A.D. 921 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1909).

Opinion

Present — Patterson, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Houghton and Scott, JJ.

All concurred as to appellants Anderson and Bennett, and all concurred as to the other appellants, excepting Laughlin, J., who dissented, he being of opinion [922]*922that the adjudication is based solely upon the failure of the appellants, who were officers of Typographical Union No. 6, to inform the individual members of the union who are adjudged to have doné acts forbidden by the injunction order of the fact that the injunction order had been issued, and that in the circumstances* the court not having expressly required them to notify the members of the union of the issuance of the injunction order, such failure is insufficient to sustain a conviction for a willful violation.of the mandate of the court which is essential to sustain ah adjudication for criminal contempt. Should any appellant desire to have the order reviewed by the Court of Appeals a stay of proceedings will be granted pending such review.

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

Related

Walters v. Reinhoudt
130 Misc. 745 (New York Supreme Court, 1927)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
132 A.D. 921, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/typothet-v-typographical-union-no-6-nyappdiv-1909.