Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Beman v. Bendix Products Corp.

89 F.2d 661

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1937-04-30
Topic
bankruptcy

PER CURIAM. Each of the above appeals is from a decree of the District Court, granting in-junctive relief against proceedings by the National Labor Relations Board under authority of the National Labor Relations Act (49 Stat. 449, 29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq.). The questions involved are not substantially different from those considered by this court in Clark, et al. v. Lindemann & Hoverson Co. (and other cases), 88 F.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Beman v. Bendix Products Corp.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
2 opinions
BEMAN v. BENDIX PRODUCTS CORPORATION,89 F.2d 661(7th Cir. 1937)
BEMAN et al. v. BENDIX PRODUCTS CORPORATION.
SHAW et al. v. WEIL-KALTER MFG. CO.
Nos. 5888, 5994.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
April 30, 1937.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Illinois.

Suits in equity by the Bendix Products Corporation against L.W. Beman, individually and as Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board for the Thirteenth Region, and others, and by the Weil-Kalter Manufacturing Company against David Shaw and another. From a decree granting injunctive relief in the first suit (14 F. Supp. 58) defendants in that suit appeal, and from a decree granting injunctive relief in the second suit, defendants in that suit appeal.

Decrees reversed, and causes remanded, with directions.
Charles Fahy, Gen. Counsel, National Labor Relations Board, of Washington, D.C., Robert B. Watts, Associate Gen. Counsel, of New York City, and Philip Levy and Jerome I. Macht, both of Washington, D.C., for appellants.

Edwin H. Cassels and Robert B. Johnstone, both of Chicago, Ill., for appellee Bendix Products Corporation.

Ralph F. Lesemann, of East St. Louis, Ill., for appellee Weil-Kalter Mfg. Co.
Before SPARKS, Circuit Judge, and LINDLEY and BRIGGLE, District Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Each of the above appeals is from a decree of the District Court, granting injunctive relief against proceedings by the National Labor Relations Board under authority of the National Labor Relations Act (49 Stat. 449,29 U.S.C.A. § 151et seq.). The questions involved are not substantially different from those considered by this court in Clark, et al. v. Lindemann Hoverson Co. (and other cases),88 F.2d 59, in which this court held that plaintiffs had an adequate remedy for the asserted injuries without invoking the equitable jurisdiction of the court. Those decisions require a reversal of each of the decrees here.

Since those decisions and since the argument in the instant cases, the Supreme Court has held the National Labor Relations Act valid in the following cases: National Labor Relations Board v. Jones Laughlin Steel Corp.,57 S.Ct. 615, 81 L.Ed. ___; National Labor Relations Board v. Fruehauf Trailer Co.,57 S.Ct. 642, 81 L.Ed. ___; National Labor Relations Board v. Friedman-Harry Marks Clothing Co.,57 S.Ct. 645, 81 L.Ed. ___; Associated Press v. N.L.R. Board,57 S.Ct. 650, 81 L.Ed. ___; Washington, Virginia Md. Coach Co. v. N.L.R. Board,57 S.Ct. 648, 81 L.Ed. ___; all decided April 12, 1937.

The decrees are reversed, and the causes remanded to the District Court with directions to dissolve the temporary injunctions and dismiss the bills.Page 662Page 889