Opinion
02-07-1936
GENERAL LEATHER PRODUCTS CO, Inc., v. LUGGAGE & TRUNK MAKERS UNION, LOCAL NO. 49 et al.
Simon M. Seley, of Newark, for complainant. Isserman & Isserman, of Newark, for defendants.
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Where after happening events constitute a defense to the action or affect the equities of the parties and would influence the court in coming to a final decree, a supplemental answer should be allowed.
2. An injunction will be denied when a change in conditions pending the suit renders an injunction unnecessary to protect complainant.
3. An employer filed a bill against labor unions for an injunction against picketing and other allegedly unlawful features of a strike. Thereafter the strike was abandoned, the pickets withdrawn, and the strikers either returned to work with complainant or obtained employment elsewhere. Held, that the abandonment of the strike constituteda defense which might be pleaded in ft supplemental answer.
4. If complainant had a good cause of action when it filed the bill, it is not deprived of costs by a cessation of defendants' wrongful conduct.
Suit by the General Leather Products Company against the Luggage & Trunk Makers Union, Local No. 49, and others. On motion for leave to file supplemental answer.
Leave granted.
Simon M. Seley, of Newark, for complainant.
Isserman & Isserman, of Newark, for defendants.
BIGELOW, Vice Chancellor.
This is a labor controversy. Complainant's employees, members of the two defendant unions, struck. Complainant filed its bill praying an injunction against picketing and other allegedly unlawful features of the strike. Defendants answered, denying the wrongful acts charged. Defendants now move for leave to file a supplemental answer setting forth that since the suit was commenced and their former answer was filed they have abandoned the strike, withdrawn the pickets, and the strikers have either returned to work with complainant or obtained employment in other factories.
Where after happening events constitute a defense to the action or affect the equities of the parties and would influence the court in coming to a final decree, a supplemental answer should be allowed. Hall v. Home Building Co., 56 N.J.Eq. 304, 38 A. 447. Does the abandonment of the strike constitute a defense? In Reynolds v. Everett, 144 N.Y. 189, 39 N.E. 72, it was held that a final injunction against striking employees was properly refused where, before trial, the strike had ceased. An injunction is a preventive remedy; not a punishment for past wrongs. An injunction will be denied when it appears, even at final hearing, that a change in conditions pending the suit renders an injunction unnecessary to protect complainant. This was assumed to be the rule in Carlisle v. Cooper, 21 N.J.Eq. 576, 587, and Thompson v. Behrmann, 37 N.J.Eq. 345. Defendants will have leave to file their supplemental answer.
Complainant's counsel stated on the argument that he would be unable to file a replication but would have to admit the truth of the supplemental answer. An injunction is no longer necessary; whether it was once needed is a moot question which the court will not try. Macklin v. Realty Co., 101 N.J.Eq. 776, 139 A. 32.
The topic of costs will undoubtedly arise when the decree is presented. If complainant had a good cause of action when it filed the bill, it is not deprived of costs by a cessation of defendants' wrongful conduct. Baldwin v. Telephone Co., 156 Md. 552, 144 A. 703; Wolcott v. Doremus, 11 Del.Ch. 277, 101 A. 868; Continental Securities Co. v. Rapid Transit Co., 221 F. 44, 136 CCA. 570. Since defendants rely on their subsequent acts to secure a dismissal of the bill, I think it should be assumed (though only for the purpose of placing costs) that complainant's suit originally had equity.