PENNSYLVANIA SYSTEM BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY AND STEAMSHIP CLERKS ETC.
v.
PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY 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.
A trade union representing employees of the Pennsylvania Railroad sought to enjoin the company from engaging in an alleged conspiracy to violate rights granted under Title III of the Transportation Act. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' dismissal of the bill, holding for the same reasons as in a parallel case that the Transportation Act did not confer enforceable rights on which an injunction could be based.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Tapt delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case turns on substantially the same questions as those' just decided in Pennsylvania Federation No. 90 against the same defendant, ante, p. 203. It is a bill in equity by a trade union called The Pennsylvania System Board of Adjustment of the Brotherhood of-Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees, made u.p of several classes of employees, clerical and otherwise, of the Pennsylvania Railroad, seeking to enjoin the Company from maintaining the same kind of alleged conspiracy as that described and complained of by Federation No. 90 in the previous case. There is no prayer in the'bill in this case for damages as there'was in the other, but the circumstances and the law sought to be applied to them ate in every respect similar. As in the previous case, elaborate briefs were filed to justify the contention that Title III of the Transportation Act vested the employees of the Pennsylvania Road with definite rights, the violation of-which constituted a legal wrong and that on these a charge of conspiracy could be predicated, and a remedy by injunction might be had in behalf of the complainants. For the same reasons as those stated in the previous case, the same conclusion must be reached. The Circuit Court of Appeals and the District Court were therefore right in dismissing the bill. The decree is
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cooley v. Bergin (D. Mass. 1928)…do not deny the right of a taxpayer to invoke the equity jurisdiction of the court to restrain' an agent of the government from doing acts that it is alleged that he has no authority to do (see Colorado v. Toll, Sup’t, 268 U. S. 228, 45 S. Ct. 505, 69 L. Ed. 581), I am bound by established precedent to refrain from interfering with the action of an executive or administrative department, except under extraordinary circumstances, which render such a course necessary in order to conserve rights of person or p…