The sun., 1903-05-16
The BOSS HORSESHOERS WIN.
err Az I\JI NCTION 40 tINST
TUEIR FNPLOIEES UNION.

Appellate Division Rules That sn tninror.
DOratc ctj Association May Be Restrained
From Conn,iiting Acts That Are Pre-
hsdiclaI to an Employers Interests
The Appellate Division OF the supreme
Court handed down a decision yesterday
reversing Justice Truax, who refused 70
grant the Master Horseshoers' Protective
Association Of the Borough Of Manhattan
an Injunction. pendente lite. against the
Journeymen Horseshoers OF the city ana
county of New York and Its president,
James Quinlivan. The Appellate Court
grants the injunction. which Tes'rains
the journeymen's union from in any way
interfering with the members Of the plalntlH
association
, The Master Horseshoers' Association is
an employers organization which has
private mark " A., which every member
/ puts on his horseshoes. In December
last the journpymen struck, with two de-
/ mands, first. that their wages be increased
to 81 IA day and second that the masters
Use the journeymen' mark. n j. u, on
their horseshoes The masters were willing
/; to raise the wages, but would not adopt
the .iourneymens label
The masters association brought suit
. for permanent injunction against the
| union, A temporary Injunction was also
asked for, pending trial, but Justice
| Truax refused to grant it. An appeal was
then taken and in reversing Justice Trua1
the Appellate Division says that the az
fdavi,s submitted by Quinlivan show
that the plaintiff is a membership corpora
tion, while the union is unincorporated.
Quinlivan. as president of the union. says
that there nowhere appears in the affidavit
of the plaintiff any proof that the union
was connect ed with or had ordered the acts
complained Of. The opinion continues:
But it is nowhere denied that the defendant
other officer or member Of the defendant
snh 20 he any s%et %a I'll that
intent to njure and destroy the plaintiff.
haa na ss+ sen enssts asts
and their employees. Notwithstanding this
Junction and vacated the one which had been
granted pending the return of the order
to show cause
well-known case of the National Protective
Association VS.. Cumming, but the Appellate
Court says that there is nothing In common
between the two cases The decision
adds
II is no answer to the plaintiffs contention,
to say that each member of its association
could maintain an action in his own behalf
to recover the damages which have been
inflicted upon him by the members OF the
defendant, or to enioin the defendant from
participating in such acts of violence by
advising or approving what its members
are doing.
The plaintiff has been duly incorporat ed
under the laws OF this State. and as such has
rights. in the nature of property. which are
entitled to the protection of the court. II
has n right TO exist, and when its destruction
j. sought by unlawful means, no matter IN
what way or by what methods. II has sum-
cent standing, in an action brought to pre-
to exercise the powers 1t possesses.
The defendant has no right. either directly
or indirectly. acting in its corporate capacity
or through its individua members, to re-
sort to physical force for the purpose OF en-;
forcing its alleged rights. This. "a ! read
the complaint. Is precisely what ii Ia doing
and it should be enioined until the action has
been tried. especially in view of the allega-
ton in the complaint. which Is not denied
to the effect that he d defendant has no property
and cannot answer in damages to the plain
tin or its members
The order OF the court below ia therefore
reversed, with $40 costs and disbursements,
and the motion to continue the injunction
granted with SO COSTS Justices 'Brien
and Iaughin concur with Justice McLaugh-
lin, who wrote the prevailing opinion; while
Justices Ingraham and Van Brunt dissen-
on the ground that actions should be main
tanned by the individual members and not
by the plaintiff corporation itself.