BARKER PAINTING COMPANY
v.
LOCAL NO. 734, BROTHERHOOD OF PAINTERS, DECORATORS, AND PAPERHANGERS OF AMERICA ET AL.
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.
Barker Painting Company sought an injunction against a union's rules requiring contractors to pay the higher of their home district wage rate or the locality wage rate, claiming the rules violated federal law. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the case on mootness grounds, holding that because the union had ceased its resistance and the painting job was completed before the court needed to decide the merits, the court was not required to address the constitutional and statutory claims.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the Court.
For the purposes of the present decision this case maybe stated as it is stated by the Circuit Court of Appeals. “The Barker Painting Company, a corporation of New York with its home office in New York City, had a contract for painting at Somerville, New Jersey. The job was about thirty per cent completed when the defendant union called off its men by force of the offending rules which require a contractor to pay the wage rate of his home district or that of the locality of the work, whichever is higher. The Barker Company filed the bill in equity in this case stating the facts and alleging unlawfulness of the rules because violative of sundry provisions of the federal constitution and federal laws. The trial Judge issued a preliminary injunction, mandatory in character in that it restrained the workmen from observing the union rules and from not returning to work. All the men save one obeyed the injunction, returned to work and completed the job.” This happened before a decision upon the merits by the District Court, April 14, 1926, 12 F. (2d) 945, and a final decree dismissing the bill, March 23, 1928. The Circuit Court of Appeals, while intimating its probable adhesion to its former decision in a similar case, Barker Painting Co. v. Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of America, 15 F. (2d) 16, in accord with the decree below, declined to deal with the merits on the ground that it had become unnecessary to deal with them and for that reason affirmed the dismissal of the bill. 34 F. (2d) 3.
Both sides desired that the Court should go farther afield. But a Court does all that its duty compels when it confines itself to the controversy before it. It cannot be required to go into general propositions or prophetic statements of how it is likely to act upon other possible or even probable issues that have not yet arisen. See Willing v. Chicago Auditorium Association, 277 U. S. 274. The controversy here was between the plaintiff and the painters in Somerville who prevented its finishing its job. If the case had needed to be considered on its merits, it would have been likely to involve a discussion more or less far reaching of the powers of the Union, but the plaintiff could not impose a duty to go into that discussion-when before the time for it the resistance had been withdrawn and the job had been done.
Decree affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (112 total)
-
Panama Ref. Co. v. Ryan, 293 U.S. 388 (U.S. 1935)…spect to the provision of § 4 of Article III of the Code; as to that, there was no basis for real controversy. See California v. San Pablo, 149 U. S. 308, 314; United States v. Alaska Steamship Co., 253 U. S. 113, 116; Barker Co. v. Painters’ Union, 281 U. S. 462. If the Government undertakes to enforce the new provision, the petitioners, as well as others, will have an opportunity to present their grievance, which can then be considered, as it should be, in the light of the facts as they will then appear. F…
-
Super Tire Eng'g Co. v. McCORKLE, 416 U.S. 115 (U.S. 1974)…516. In finding that the controversy was moot, the Court necessarily rejected all these contentions. 348 U. S. 803. Upon the authority of that decision the same contentions must be rejected in the present case. See also Barker Co. v. Painters Union, 281 U. S. 462; Commercial Cable Co. v. Burleson, 250 U. S. 360.” 361 U. S., at 368-369 (footnotes omitted). 1 find no reason to depart from this holding in the case before us. While it is not inconceivable that the petitioners’ employees will once again strike a…
-
Ala. State Fed'n of Labor v. McADORY, 325 U.S. 450 (U.S. 1945)…ers’ contentions as to § 15 apply, we are unable to say whether its application in any given case not now before us would or would not be constitutional. Liverpool, N. Y. & P. S. S. Co. v. Emigration Comm’rs, supra, 39; Barker Co. v. Painters Union, 281 U. S. 462, 463, 464. Determination of these questions as well as [*469] the proper construction of the section which is challenged as vague and indefinite must await its application to some specific state of facts. Other contentions. Only a word need be sai…
Previewing 3 of 112 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Willing v. Chicago Auditorium Ass'n, 277 U.S. 274 (U.S. 1928)
- Barker Painting Co. v. Brotherhood of Painters, 15 F.2d 16 (3d Cir. 1926)
- Barker Painting Co. v. Local NO. 734 (D.N.J. 1926)
- Barker Painting Co. v. Local NO. 734, 34 F.2d 3 (3d Cir. 1929)