Supreme Court, March, 1921. [Vol. 115. Brotherhood of Painters, 218 id. 115, 123; Brower v. Crimmins, 67 Misc. Rep. 68, 71; Mazurajtis v. Maknawyce, 93 id. 337, 340. Plaintiff's counsel undertake to demonstrate that the complaint does charge all the members with liability for the acts which are laid as the foundation of the cause of action. In order to ascertain whether this claim is well founded an examination of the complaint is necessary. It is brought, as I have said, against "Sidney Hillman, individually and as General President of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America;" also against a number of other persons individually and as officials in various capacities of said organization; against some forty or fifty other persons "individually and as members, agents and employees of" said organization, and against one Leiserson, apparently merely as an individual. 66 After alleging the corporate capacity of the plaintiff and that it is engaged in the ownership and operation of factories and plants for the production of clothing, it proceeds, in paragraphs 3 and 4, to set out that the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America is an unincorporated membership association having a membership of 175,000," distributed throughout many cities in the United States; "that in and by the constitution it is provided that the aforesaid general executive board shall have the right, power and authority to call and authorize strikes and to direct and to declare boycotts." This is preceded and followed by details of its organization covering its governing body or bodies and the local unions authorized or created by it; also allegations of the precise official capacity of said Hillman and of the other officers. In paragraph 10 it is alleged" that all of the remaining defendants, except Leiserson, were in the employ Misc.] Supreme Court, March, 1921. of the plaintiff up to about December 1, 1920, but have ceased to be in plaintiff's employ, and that the defendants at all the times hereinafter mentioned were and still are all members, agents or employees of the defendant Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America." Paragraph 11 alleges that the association is controlled by a constitution duly adopted. Paragraph 12 contains an extract from the preamble to the constitution alleged to be" the purpose of the organization, reading as follows: "The industrial and interindustrial organization, built upon the solid rock of clear knowledge and class consciousness, will put the organized working class in actual control of the system of production and the working class will then be ready to take possession of it." In paragraph 13 it is alleged that the association was organized" only for the purpose of destroying the existing industrial structure in the clothing industry and the present industrial system of ownership by private persons * of the business and factories and all of the means for production of clothing including the ownership by the plaintiff of its clothing business and solely for the purpose of wresting, taking and seizing from the employers all private property, machinery,. goods, wares and merchandise and solely and only for the purposes of encouraging and inciting other workers in other industries to agree and conspire to destroy the present industrial structure and the seizure of said means of production and to and properties by said workers destroy existing social, industrial and political structures and to substitute in lieu and in place thereof the rule of the proletariat that all of the de Supreme Court, March, 1921. [Vol. 115. fendants herein have combined, conspired and agreed to carry out all the aforementioned purposes." In paragraphs 14, 15 and 16 it is set forth that the plaintiff entered into contracts of employment with various persons on the express understanding that they had ceased to be affiliated with the defendant association and would not join it in the future, and in paragraph 17" that in violation of the contract rights of the plaintiff * and inspired by opposition to all forms of law and order" and in pursuance of the various unlawful purposes hereinbefore recited "the defendants are wrongfully and unlawfully instigating plaintiff's employees to cease work and join with the defendant association for the aforesaid purposes, and the defendants have caused, sanctioned and directed and are conducting a general strike against the manufacturers of clothing in the City of New York and the defendants have been and still are wrongfully and unlawfully instigating persons to become engaged in the practice of picketing plaintiff's factories," and that said pickets are in various disorderly ways intimidating plaintiff's employees from continuing to work for them and hampering the free dispatch of plaintiff's business. Paragraph 18 recites "that in pursuance of the aforesaid unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy the defendant Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America has voted the sum of $1,000,000 to be collected from and contributed by the members of said defendant for the purposes of carrying on the aforesaid strike" and the other purposes recited, "and that all of the defendants herein, except Leiserson, have approved and agreed to the collection of said sum of $1,000,000 and have proceeded to collect said sum of $1,000,000 from the members of the defendant union and have collected from said members a substantial Misc.] Supreme Court, March, 1921. part of said $1,000,000." The 19th and 20th paragraphs contain allegations of the plaintiff's damage and the absence of an adequate remedy at law. On this complaint it is demanded, first, that the defendant Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America be decreed to be an unlawful combination and conspiracy and be dissolved; and, second, "that the defendants and their and each of their agents, etc., be enjoined from doing any acts injurious to the plaintiff," and in particular from enticing or interfering with plaintiff's employees, or from creating or continuing a strike or from picketing or congregating about plaintiff's premises and intimidating plaintiff's employees; and, third, that a judgment be entered awarding plaintiff the sum of $500,000 damages suffered. It will be observed that the complaint really sets forth two causes of action, one for a dissolution of the defendant association as unlawful and the other for an injunction against acts for which it is sought to be held responsible. Since it is clear that no decree of dissolution can be entered in this suit brought at the instance merely of a private individual, I think that I am correctly interpreting the pleader's intention if I read the allegations respecting the alleged unlawful purpose of the association as intended to support or justify the prayer for injunction. Indeed, it was, as I understand it, conceded upon the argument of this motion and of the accompanying motion for a temporary injunction that the instant suit was aimed at something other than the ordinary elements present in controversies between employer and employee; it is designed to challenge the right of the defendant association to continue to function. The issue thus tendered has been accepted by the defendant without objection concerning the possible improper Supreme Court, March, 1921. [Vol. 115. joinder of causes of action or the futility of the prayer for a decree of dissolution. I shall therefore deal with the allegations of the complaint as though they were all to be considered as bearing solely upon the right to the injunction. Although it is not contended on behalf of plaintiff that the bare existence of an unlawful purpose unaccompanied by overt acts constitutes ground for the issuance of an injunction (see Reynolds v. Everett, 144 N. Y: 189, 194-5; Sinsheimer v. United Garment Workers, 77 Hun, 215, 217), nevertheless it may not be unprofitable to inquire first whether there is a sufficient allegation that the unlawful purposes claimed to exist are entertained by or that knowledge thereof is chargeable to all the members of the association. Plaintiff's counsel in their brief claim that there are adequate allegations in that respect because" it is alleged that the preamble to its constitution provides that one of the purposes is to put the organized working class in actual control of the system of production and the working class will then be ready to take possession of it," and that" all the members of the association who are parties to this action because they are being sued through their president, Sidney Hillman, are charged with knowledge of the provisions of their own constitution and are presumed to be bound by its terms." I understand plaintiff's claim in this regard to be that the preamble quoted expresses an unlawful purpose, with knowledge of which all the members of the association are chargeable. Taking at its face value this extract from the preamble as recited in the complaint, although its context is not set out, and judged by every fair standard of interpretation, particularly in an instrument of this character, I think the phrases quoted are quite innocuous. They express some ideal which, it is hoped, may at some time be achieved. But |