Court Opinion

ID: 9767334
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 05:16:58.653502+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:30.635151
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
CRAMER, Justice.
Our CHIEF JUSTICE has dissented on rehearing in this case, among other things stating that appellants are entitled to a final decision now. In such dissenting opinion he has failed to make a necessary distinction to a proper decision in this case, to wit: A distinction between a legal ambulatory picketing and an illegal secondary picketing constituting a secondary boycott under our Anti-Trust statutes. In the present suit the employer against whom the union was striking is not a party to the suit. The present suit was filed and prosecuted by customers of the employer, innocent third parties who have no labor dispute with the union. Such . plaintiffs in this suit alleged and proved that union men working for them and with whom they had no labor dispute, refused to work with the concrete purchased from the employer of the striking union members.
In our opinion such facts give rise to a right for, not only the temporary injunction granted, but, if the facts are the same on a final hearing, a permanent injunction.
 As between the appellants and ap-pellees, the actions of appellants’ pickets created and effected a secondary boycott under Art. 51S4f, Vernon’s Ann.Ciy.St. We are further of the opinion that Art. 5154f, supra, in so far as the questions here are concerned, is constitutional.
Being of the opinion that our former . disposition of the case was correct, motion for rehearing is overruled.
BOND, C. J., dissents.