Martin v. United Slate, Tile & Composition Roofers, Damp & Waterproof Workers, Ass'n

Henderson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This appeal is from an order of the Circuit Court of Baltimore City denying a motion to dissolve an interlocutory injunction and continuing the temporary order restraining the defendants, until a hearing on the merits. There is no doubt that such an order is appealable. Code Art. 5, sec. 31; Miller’s Equity sec. 318.

The bill for injunction was filed by United Slate, Tile and Composition Roofers, Damp and Waterproof Workers Association, an international labor union affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, against Joseph Martin, individually and as Business Agent and Secretary-Treasurer of Local Union No. 80, and William Krumm, individually and as President of Local Union 80. The bill recited that Local Union No. 80 had received its charter from the complainant and was subject to and bound by the constitution and by-laws adopted by the International Union and filed with the bill; that the officers and members of the Local were likewise subject to and bound by said consitution and by-laws, and by the applicable disciplinary measures therein mentioned. As a result of an investigation and report by Edward F. Hurley, vice-president of the international union, filed with the bill, the International President “suspended the charter” of ³⁸⁶ the local union, subject to the approval of the next session of the International Executive Board (under Art. VIII, Sec. 2 (e) of the constitution). He preferred charges of inefficiency and conduct unbecoming a member, tending to bring the union into disrepute, against Martin.

No charges were preferred against Krumm, although the report asserted that he was wholly dominated by Martin. The report asserted that Martin had been arrested and indicted on charges of conducting bookmaking on the union premises and assaulting a police officer raiding the same, and found “guilty as charged.” The International President authorized Hurley to take “supervision over” the local union and all its “funds and documents”. The bill further alleged that Martin and Krumm had refused to surrender to Hurley the “moneys, property, assets and records” of the local union, and that unless restrained by court order, they “will secrete, spend and dissipate” its property and funds, including union dues.. The bill alleged that the complainant had no adequate remedy at law and would suffer irreparable damage unless a restraining order were granted against Martin and Krumm.

Upon these allegations the court issued a temporary restraining order, conditioned upon the filing of a $2,000 bond (subsequently increased to $10,000). The defendants filed an answer to the bill denying that the international union had a right, under its constitution, to oust the officers of the local union, denying that the constitution was validly adopted, and alleging that the action of the International President was arbitrary, illegal and for an ulterior motive. It denied that the international union had any right, title or interest in the assets of the local union. It denied that Martin had been found “guilty as charged”.

The defendants also filed a motion to dissolve the injunction, on the grounds (1) that the bill did not allege- any acts of “dissipation, secretion or disposition of assets” or “imminent danger” thereof, (2) that the injunction was in violation of the Anti-injunction Act, Code, Art. 100, secs. 64-76, inch, and (3) that the local union was