VAN ZANDT
v.
MCKEE ET AL.

5th Cir. | 1953-03-11
No. 14152
202 F.2d 490 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (1953)

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

The court held that the appellant failed to state a claim involving a federal question or the requisite jurisdictional amount for diversity jurisdiction.


Facts & Procedural History

Appellant alleged that general contractors and unions refused to hire him or prevailed upon others to do so. The appeal was dismissed as to two unions…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
HOLMES, Circuit Judge.

HOLMES, Circuit Judge.

The complaint in this case is replete with allegations of fact and conclusions of law, which at times are difficult to distinguish; but, construing the pleadings so as to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of the action, we take the facts as alleged therein in their most favorable aspect so far as appellant is concerned. We were advised in open court, however, that this appeal had been dismissed as to the American Federation of Labor and the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America.

This leaves three general contractors and Local 1846, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, as the only appellees; and the gist of the claim against them is that they have refused or prevailed upon others to refuse to hire appellant, or have hired him and refused to retain him in their employment or prevailed upon others to do so. So far as appellant’s claim is predicated on any federal statute, we think the judgment appealed from should be affirmed upon the authority of Amazon Cotton Mill Co. v. Textile Workers Union, 4 Cir., 167 F. 2d 183. So far as it is based upon his alleged constitutional right to work, there is no showing that such right has been invaded by these remaining appellees.

The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, includes the right to work and earn an honest living; but it does not include the right to work for any particular individual without the latter’s consent. One man’s right to work stops short of the other fellow’s right not to hire him. The appellant may have a cause of action under the laws of some state, but he has stated none that involves a federal question, and none of the requisite jurisdictional amount wherein there is a controversy wholly between citizens of different states. Therefore, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw