Twin city review. [volume] (Champaign, Ill.) 19??-1929, 1922-05-26

Having learned of the manner in
which our courts of equity came to
be established in America, and before
entering into further review of
equity proceedings in connection with
industrial disputes, it is of value to
know what English precedents the
American courts of equity had fol
Issuing injunctions restraining wage
earners from doing certain specific
acts.
As the British Courts of Chancery
have not made a practice of issuing
injunctions in connection with indus
trial disputes, there is a popular be-
lief that no injunctions have ever
been issued by these courts in con-
nection with strikes or other disputes
between workmen and employers.
lnjunctions against striking work.
men in England did not become COM
mon practice as they have in America
for good and sufficient reasons-the
decision of Lord Chancellor Cairns,
and an act of Parliament.
The British authorities, which have
been examined, contain the record
of but two cases--the Springfield
Spinning Company VS.. Riley and the
Tatf-Vale case.
An examination of these two cases
is of particular value and Importance
because they indicate that the Ameri-
can practice of equity, while inher-
tied from England, has deliberately
ignored English precedents and au-
thority in the issuing of injunctions
against striking workmen.
In -.
the Springfield Spinning Company
and the strikers issued placards and
advertisements for the purpose of
notifying other workmen of the rea-
sons for the strike. These placards
resulted in keeping workmen away
from the company's plant, and, find
ing that the workers publicity cam
paign prevented them from securing
strike-breakers, the company applied
to Vice-Chancellor Malin for an in
junction which would restrain the is
suing of any further placards or adj
vertisements.
The company claimed that they
were being prevented from continu-
ing their business and that the value
OF their property was being seriously
injured.
The injunction was granted and
apparently no appeal was taken 10
q higher court. But six years later,
in the case of Assurance Company
VS.. Knott, the principle involved and
the authroity and powers of the
equity court were decided by the
highest authority. In this case, Lord
Chancellor Cairns, ruled and Sir w.
nj. James, l.. j., and Sir G. Mellish,
Il. j., his associates, concurred that:
The Court of Chancery had nc
jurisdiction to restrain the publica-
ton OF libel, as such, even if il
should be injurious to property"
The decision of the Lord Chancel-
Tor in this case is of particular value
to us because it not only serves tc
indicate the disregard American
courts of equity have shown for Eng
fish precedents but a perversion OF
a mere action for libel into a prop.
erty injury.
The first state injunction ISSUED
against workmen was by a Massa
Sherry VS.. Perkins. In issuing it.
injunction, the Massachusetts cour
quoted the Springfield Spinning Com
Poiiy vase DIS pfeceuenI LOT IL
cation, although fourteen years be-
fore, ce-Chancellor Mains injunc
ton had been reversed and the prin
ciple upon which it had been issue,
repudiated by the Lord Chancello
and his associate vice-chancellors.
The second injunction issued b,
an English Court of Chancery is O
equal, if not greater Importance as
precedent. 1t was issued in connec
ton with the famous Taff-Vale case
The strike against the Taff-Val
Railroad took place in August, 1900
On September 5, 1900, Judge Far
well granted an interim injunction
against the Amalgamated Society o
Railway Servants, restraining then
from persuading or otherwise endeav
orng to prevent persons from work
ing Tor the plaintiff, ETC., etc.
Inc union appealed from Judg
rarwehfs action and when the cas-
was heard, the Court of Appeals
unanimous opinion reversed ar
set aside Judge Farwelps in;nnct;n
Inc Railway Company thea es,.,S,
the case to the House Of To,.Ss ~ ~
after It had been discussed ~ To-, ~ -,
'he house of Lords reversed tha !