Case Name: BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN AND ENGINEMEN, Appellant, v. George PALMER et al., appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1949-11-21
Citations: 178 F.2d 722
Docket Number: No. 9863
Parties: BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN AND ENGINEMEN, Appellant, v. George PALMER et al., appellees.
Judges: Before EDGERTON, CLARK and PROCTOR, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 178
Pages: 722–722

Head Matter:
BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN AND ENGINEMEN, Appellant, v. George PALMER et al., appellees.
No. 9863.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued March 15, 1949.
Decided Nov. 21, 1949.
Mr. Milton Kramer, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Lester P. Schoene, Washington, D. G, was on the brief, for appellant.
Mr. Charles H. Houston, Washington, D. G, with whom Mr. Joseph C. Waddy, Washington, D. G, was on the brief, for appellees Palmer, Wright and Carter.
Messrs. Sidney S. Alderman, W. S. Mac-gill, Henry L. Walker, and William B. Jones, Washington, D. G, entered appearances for appellee Southern Ry. Co.
Mr. Frank J. Wideman, Washington, D. G, entered an appearance for appellee Seaboard Air Line R. Co.
Messrs. Robert R. Faulkner, Washington, D. G, and Thomas W. Davis, Wilmington, N. G, entered appearances for appellee Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.
Before EDGERTON, CLARK and PROCTOR, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This is a special appeal by the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Engine-men from an injunction pendente lite which restrained the Brotherhood, the Southern Railway Company, the Seaboard Air Line Railroad Company, the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company, and persons acting in concert with them, from entering into certain proposed agreements regarding promotion and dismissal of firemen. Our decision was postponed pending the Supreme Court's action in the case of Leroy Graham et al. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen, 70 S.Ct. 14.
The order here on appeal is now affirmed.