Opinion · Nylaw New York
DELAWARE, LACKAWANNA WESTERN RD. CO. v. SLOCUM, 274 App. Div. 950 (1948)
Del., LACKAWANNA W. R.R. Co., Respondent, v. MARION J.SLOCUM, as Gen. Chairman of Lackawanna Div. No. 30 of the Ord. ofRailroad Telegraphers, Appellant, et al., Defendants., 274 A.D. 950 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department. 1948)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Nylaw New York
- Jurisdiction
- Nylaw
- Date
- 1948-11-10
- Topic
- general
DELAWARE, LACKAWANNA WESTERN RD. CO. v. SLOCUM, 274 App. Div. 950 (1948) DELAWARE, LACKAWANNA WESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY, Respondent, v. MARION J.SLOCUM, as General Chairman of Lackawanna Division No. 30 of the Order ofRailroad Telegraphers, Appellant, et al., Defendants.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed DELAWARE, LACKAWANNA WESTERN RD. CO. v. SLOCUM, 274 App. Div. 950 (1948). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
DELAWARE, LACKAWANNA WESTERN RD. CO. v. SLOCUM,274 App. Div. 950(1948)
DELAWARE, LACKAWANNA WESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY, Respondent, v. MARION J.
SLOCUM, as General Chairman of Lackawanna Division No. 30 of the Order of
Railroad Telegraphers, Appellant, et al., Defendants.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department.
Appeal from Supreme Court, Chemung County.
The judgment further declared that the telegraphers' union and its general chairman and members are estopped by their acts and conduct as well as by their agreement from claiming such positions or any part of the work assigned to said crew callers. Although the National Railroad Adjustment Board is a proper body to hear controversies arising under employment contracts pursuant to the Railway Labor Act (U.S. Code, tit. 45, § 151et seq.), nevertheless, State courts are not deprived of jurisdiction under the circumstances of this case. (Delaware, Lackawanna WesternR.R. Co.v.Slocum,269 App. Div. 467;Moorev.IllinoisCentral R.R. Co.,312 U.S. 630.) ThePitneycase (Order ofRy. Conductorsv.Pitney,326 U.S. 561) upon which appellant relies was a decision relating to the dual capacity of the court, but did not overrule the holding of theMoorecase (supra). The dispute between the parties arose mainly under the construction of agreements entered into between the railroad and the Order of the Railroad Telegraphers, and also between the railroad and the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees. The court below properly construed the contracts and had the power in its discretion to declare the rights and legal relations of the parties by declaratory judgment. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 473.) Judgment appealed from unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Present — Hill, P.J., Brewster, Foster, Russell and Deyo, JJ. [Seepost, p. 1076.]