Task: songer_direct1

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
Your task is to determine the ideological directionality of the court of appeals decision, coded as "liberal" or "conservative". Consider liberal in suits against management, for union, individual worker, or government in suit against management; in government enforcement of labor laws, for the federal government or the validity of federal regulations; in Executive branch vs union or workers, for executive branch; in worker vs union (non-civil rights), for union; in conflicts between rival union, for union which opposed by management and "not ascertained" if neither union supported by management or if unclear; in injured workers or consumers vs management, against management; in other labor issues, for economic underdog if no civil rights issue is present; for support of person claiming denial of civil rights. Consider the directionality to be "mixed" if the directionality of the decision was intermediate to the extremes defined above or if the decision was mixed (e.g., the conviction of defendant in a criminal trial was affirmed on one count but reversed on a second count or if the conviction was afirmed but the sentence was reduced). Consider "not ascertained" if the directionality could not be determined or if the outcome could not be classified according to any conventional outcome standards.

BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.
In the court below William F. MeMurray and others, members of a local labor lodge, brought a bill in equity against the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, a corporation of Ohio, and the parent organization of the local organization here concerned. As the ease developed, it became, clear that what was involved was seniority employment in an interstate railroad run and that the parties in interest in that question were the members of the local lodge in Pennsylvania at one end and the members of a loeal lodge in Ohio at the other end of the run. The dispute had been eventually carried to the highest tribunal of the Brotherhood and the contention of the Ohio lodge had been there sustained.
On final hearing the court below held: “Plaintiffs have claimed, and their suit is founded thereon, that seniority rights upon the through runs are property rights. If so, this court cannot well make a decree which will wipe out the claimed property rights of the members of Lodge No. 421 [the Ohio lodge] without giving them an opportunity to be heard. The Dennison trainmen are probably not resident within this district, and so cannot be made parties in the instant action. It seems quite possible that they with the present defendants, could be joined in another district; but whether this be correct or not, they are essential parties, and a court of equity can properly make no effective order unless they be joined as defendants. Ex parte Equitable Trust Co. (C. C. A.) 231 F. 571, 592; California v. S. Pac. Co., 157 U. S. 229, 15 S. Ct. 591, 39 L. Ed. 683.”
We agree with that view and, therefore, affirm the judgment below.

Question: What is the ideological directionality of the court of appeals decision?
A. conservative
B. liberal
C. mixed
D. not ascertained
Answer:

Answer: B