Bisbee daily review., 1917-12-23

tions existing between plaintiff and its employees in order to compel plain tiff to '-unionize" the mine.
 A restraining or0er having 6eeI granted, followed by a temporary in junction, the served defendants filed answers, and the-eUpOn made a mo- ton = modify the injunction. which was refused 172 Fed Rep. S6S- An appeal taken by defendants from this order was dismissed by the Circuit Court of Appeals 176 Fed Rep. 549. Afterwards they applied for and ob- tained leave to withdraw their answers and file others; thS order. however. prescribed that the withdrawn snsw- CTS were not to be removed frcm the file" The new answers 0enied as- material avertments of the bill. some of which had been admitted in the for mer answers Plaintiff. having filed replicaticns. obtained an order that the former answers should be treated as evidence on behalf of the plaintiff upon the issue joined Upon this evi- dence ani other evidence the result that a final decree was made January Is, ISIS. granting a perpetual injunc- ton. POP Fed. Rep 512. This was reversed by the Circuit Court of Az peals June l. 1914 C.14 Fed. Rep. 6S5). but tie mandate Was stayed pending an application to this cour; for a writ of certiorari- Afterwards an appeal appeal. but granted the writ of certf0r- ari (241 L. s. 6f+), the record on ap- peal to stand as a return.
 The final decree of the District Court included an award of injunction against John Nitchsll. W E. Wilson and Thomas Hughes. who while named as defendants in the bill were not served with process and entered no ap- pearance except to object to the juris- diction of the court over them Under the federal practice the appearance to object did not bind these parties to submit to the jurisdiction on the over ruling of the objection CHarkness V. Hyde. 9S [. s. 476. ATS: Southern Pa cific Co. V. Denton, 146 T. s. 202, 2O6; Mexican Central Railway V. Pinkney, News. 15S [. :. SIS: Davis V. C. C. c. & St L. By. PIT |. :. 157. 174), and since the injunction operates only in perSOnam. it was erroneous to include them as defendants. It also was CT rcnsous 10 include personal relief by injunction against certain named par ties who. pending suit. were chosen to succeed some Of the original de feHdants as officers of the interna- tional, district. and sub-district unions. but who were not served with process ard did not appear. they being includ- ed upon the ground that they were be fore the court by representation through service having been had upon their said predecessors in office" This is not a representative suit within the meaning of Equity Rule SS: nor is there such privity between the holder of m office in a voluntary association and his successor as to bind the latter hy process issued against the former.
 But these procedural difficulties do not affect that part of the decree which awarded an injunction against the answering defendants Oewis, Green. Sullivan. Savage. Watkins. Eel enk8. and Rankin) individually" and not as officers of the Union or its branches except as to Savage, against whom the decree goes in both indi- vidual and official capacities. he alone having retained at the time of the final decree the same office he held at the beginning of the suit. If there was error in excluding the -ofi'-5l' re- sponsibility of the others. it was n1t one of which they could complain. and il was no. assigred for error upon their appeal to the Circuit Court of ''ppeals If they were subject to in junction at all, they were so in their individual capacities Whether the in- junction will bind their successors in office. or their fellOw-members of the Union. will depend upon questions of confederacy. agency, notice. and the like. which may be determined here after. under due process of law. if and when proceedings are taken to enforce the injunction against parties other thaa the answering defendants. The clause in the decree enjoining, as con federates, all present and future mem bers of the Union. without naming them. is brutum fulmen in the absence of proof of confederacy submitted hereafter against particular members sought to be held for violating the 'n- junction: its inclusion is not mat ter of which the answering defendants may complain, nor was it assigned a. error.
 We proceed. therefore. to consider the case as Il stands against the an swering defendants
 The District Court based its decision upon two grounds; CD That the or sanizatiOn known as the United M.ne Workers 0f America. and its branches ss conducted and managed at the time of the suit and for many years before, was a cOmmon-law conspiracy in un- ? reasonable restraint of trade. and also and especially a conspiracy against the rights of the nSn-uniOn miners In West Virginia, and @ That the de fentants. in an effort 10 compel the plaintiff tO enter into cOntractual reia- tions with the Union relating tO the employment Of labor and the produc- tion of coal. although having knowl- edge Of express contracts existing be- tween plaintiff and its employees which excluded relations with the Union. endeavored by unlawful means to procure a breach of these contracts by the employees
 4 brief recital of previous tTansac- tioue hnfuppu fhe uarffps harnnlpS