Court Opinion

ID: 9808203
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 20:30:18.53266+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:09:55.580121
License: Public Domain

Hoke, J.,
concurring: I concur in the disposition of the present appeal by which, as to the individual defendants, the restraining order is continued to the hearing. The individual defendants have demurred to the complaint, and thereby admitted the facts pertinent to the inquiry, and from these facts, stated in the complaint with precision and definiteness, it appears that for. several weeks prior to the institution of the suit the defendants, as individuals and as members of a typographical union, having combined together for that end, have been engaged in a systematic and deliberate course of unlawful intimidation and violence towards plaintiff and its employees, with the view and purpose of interrupting and destroying the lawful prosecution of the plaintiff’s business at Asheville, N. C., and that they will succeed in their unlawful purpose unless restrained, etc. In such case, if the courts may not and do not interfere by appropriate and orderly process for the protection of plaintiff and its employees, in my estimate, the rights of private ownership of property and the peaceful pursuit of one’s lawful occupation guaranteed in the constitutions of both State and Nation have become meaningless phrases, and government by law will have utterly failed in its purpose. In McGinnis v. Typographical Union, 182 N. C., 770-774, the cause was heard and determined on the evidence and affidavits offered, and the sufficiency of the allegations of the complaint were not passed upon or determined. So considered, the Court was of opinion that upon the entire evidence the question of the unlawfulness of defendants’ conduct was too much in doubt to permit of the continuance of a restraining order in the case, but no such perplexity is presented in this record, where defendants have filed no affidavits in denial of plaintiff’s complaint but have expressly admitted the unlawfulness of their conduct, the unlawfulness of their purpose, and that there is every probability that they will succeed in such purpose unless prevented by process of the court. In the recent case of Tucker v. Eatough, 186 N. C., 505, the Court has held that, under the *54law as it at present exists in this State, an unincorporated association, as such, cannot be sued, but as to tbe other defendants served with process, I am of opi.nion, as stated, that 'tbe restraining order should be continued against them to tbe bearing as individuals and as members of tbe Typographical Union, or in any other capacity in which they may act or profess to act in violation of plaintiff’s rights of person or property and in breach of the State’s peace.
Stacy and Adams, JJ., concur in the opinion of the Court and in the concurring opinion of Associate Justice Hoke.