# Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Quality Coal Corp. v. Lewis (No. 517) > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386420_0083%3A2 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petition for Writ of Certiorari - **Published:** January 1, 1959 ## Text FILE COPY. Ji oon “ ; s earee- NK ud YAMBBS &. BROWNING, Cierk as ’ IN THE Supreme Court of the United States. Ocroper Term. A. .. LQ, 7 ' , > Ward No. 5 | re ois QUALITY COAL CORPORATION es AN [NDIANA (CORPORATION, : I’ tifhomer, n . aS. .. ’ JOHN L. LEWES, HENRY G. SCHMEDT asp JOSE. TRUSTEES OF THE -Usirep Mink ' ? PHINE ROCHE as \oRKERS OF. America WRLRARE ASD | _-. PBTITION. FOR WRI UNITED STATES COURT SEVENTH CIRCUIT. * 2eTIREMENT FUND. . Re spondents. tT OF CERTIORARI TO THE Ee ea OF APPEALS FOR THE — a ‘ ‘ 4 be e \ e > oun R. Jett. 705 Ohi Street, : er ie ice ote 2 Questions Presented ...---- i eeskaw* Tene 2-4 Statute Involved i ae ee We feet et Statement of the Case..---- eon we ee etre es if, Meee Basis for Federal Jurisdiction in Trial Court. isa ae Reasons Relied on for Granting LL ETON ug i. The Agreement Was Illegal py Virtue of- Peti- tioner Being Forced to Operate a Closed Shop. 6-11 ». The - Majority Opinion that the ‘‘Savings | Clause’? Legalized the, Contract Is in Conflict with General Principles of LAW... fs Fe ties oe 3. The Agreement Was an Integrated Instrument — and Any Iilegal Provision Therein Destroyed the Entire Agreement... - +--+: Seen nasi ts 11-13 4. The Contract Was Void Because It Was Mad@ Under Duress. ...--+--: entices nga ses en 13, 14 5. The Contract Was Unilateral and Void.. SOW "6. Indispensable Parties: Were Lacking.....-- 14, lo . — ee , — — eo 7. No Trust Was Created and Therefore the Plain- _ tiffs Could. Not Bring This Cause: of Action.15, 16 il " : APPENDIN. “Majority Opinion of ¢ ‘ourt of Appeals (Appendix 1) .19-25 Dissenting Opinion of Court of Appeals —— has ooo eka ee ee ere ee 26-29 Judgment of Court of Appeals - Appendix ” ieee Ae Order Denying Petition for "Rehe raring ( Appenutix (OS SES GES Ae CoS a eee eee 31 Ixsnance of Mandate Stayed until November: 13, 8909, (Appendix IV) ...-- ars een eat ees ee .. a : (Appendig V.) ~ Statutes eerie ah aerate Pe Pee ee eee i Se 29.U. A. 158 (a) (1), (A) (3), (B) (1),, (B). 2) se ing, ( Appendix v ). Nb ee ne ee 34 Aiidavits (Petitioners) : : Carl F. Kumpf... ie ear cere ee ‘al ty bd jolt Gettle ..5--5..---- eee Ver eS cere a: Weed Lister ©. ..- 05. ++: eee Moo. BSN Clayton Weaver ...-..- Since? Ere ne 3) ge Respondent's Affiday its and Exhibits... .6.-- ore 46° Agreement of: 1950 effective September 1, 1 55. 637 Agreement of 1950 ¢ fective Oetober f, 1956.:...: .37, 38 Agreement of 1) e) effective to June 30, 1952... 38-40, Affidavit of Josephine Mate.....-4:: pate eee 4), 41 Exhibit eG (International nions Const. a : 3 Exhibit ‘*H-1°" (Inte ‘rnational U nions. Const. - kd, 43 Exhibit “H-2 2°? (International U nions Const.)..: 45 Affiday’ it of W ilbert rere eee Foner 44-46 Petitioners’ Sfliday it in Rebuttal. ....-..-- rene ies "46-52 EEE ET Te aly (a ce ana 46, 47 Jack Lynch ....-------++-- Aree be rere mee 147,48 Joseph Jenkins .....5++--: Bose se Rae EO EN ee ill Aw ruoritieEs, CITED. Birminghain v. Barters, Si ” b ed. Co. oe 13 Brown V. National U nion,, Avs Fed. ‘Supp. a Davis v. Davis, 197 Ind. B86, lol NE renee J4 Krauss aw. Kraus, 250 Lind. ‘325, 182 VE 2d GOR... 16° Lewis: et aul. v. Be nedliet Coal Corp. 299 Fed. 2) S46 Pa ea ici Seti 2s aay bala MRM TR Lewis et al. v. Fohteine, 964 Fed. (2) 194. :.-----05°° yh I ewis et al. v. Quality ¢ ‘oal Corp., 2439 ed. 2 770. eee At oe At can readily be seen that the mere retention and the mere execution of such clauses ix a vidlation without proul of the act showing the violation. The Second Circuit in VERB ve Crotttried Baking Co. 210 Fed. (2) 772 at 780 stated : “Nor is it of consequence, as the respondents con: tend, that each. of the contraet~ contained a ‘savings clause’ the intended effect of which was to salvage a> niuch wnion security as possible should the prefe ren : tial hiring provisions he invalidated. The ine? asion of thix vague ‘savings clause’ in each contract does net purge the: ‘preferential hiring provisions of their ‘illegal -effect. The majority opinion (p. +) commented: “The qualified condition imposed is expressed as one complete provision. Its application is not to hy measured by some standard found. elsewhere in’ the \ contract." ieee 13 How ean this be reconciled with the clause in the con-— tract as follows, to-wit :— This Agreement is an innenebeted instrument andNts respective provisions are interdependent and shall be. ON froin and after Mareh 5, 1950.°° (Record - . 61. Ke : Tins Is ‘in direct conflict with als et ad, . Benedut Coal Corp. (A9as), 261 Fed, 2d 548, 550, 096. 090, an others. IV. The Contract Was Void Because it Was Made Under Duress . * ve The majority opinion states that there is no merit to petitioner's claim that the Agreement aw as invalid because of duress: It states :— \ tis, °*The threat to cause a legal strike and its attendant ___work-steppage-doexnet-of_ itself constitute duress-and mere inequality in economit bargaining power is not legal unfairness which will permit either party to avid a contract.’ \\ ates 3 : le, eae . This statement is quoted.from Birmingham ¥. Bartels 157 Fed. 2d 295. The majority opinion ne \doul) . In quoting from the Birmingham eae, overlooked part \of the ir- ° + | -- minaham opinion in this, to-wit :— or Court of law. cannot sitacitilliae a ‘contract he- cause of alleged unfairness in the negotiation by which the obligation has been created, unless the uaafrne ss) amounts to duress or fraud capable of arouling the contract, Dress or fraud -has not been set up. here, nor has either of them attempted to be proved.” \ aaa emphasis.) -Numerous widisputed affidavits aré in the record show- lig that duress.was perpetrated on this operator. (Record pp. 101-165 ; Record pp. 193-198.) The Birmingham case with the omission considered over rules the majority opin- 14 ion. In the ease at Bar the evidence was replete that the operator was coerced in executing the Agreenient, and the evidence. sustained the affirmative defenses, V. The Contract Was Unilateral and Void. , ; Since the contracting parties were the®United’ Mine Workers of America and the petitioner Quality Coal Cor- poration, and the action was brought -byea how@ignatory to the Agreement, and only the petitioner is hound by the Agreement and no obligation. is placed upon the respend- ents by virtue of the Agreement, then it resulfs im a uni- lateral agreement wherein only petitioner is hound and there is a lack of mutuality of: obligation which is an essential element In every shuns tl agreement, (Daris “y. Davis, 17 Ind. 386, 151.N. KE. 134.) VI. Indispensable Parties Were Lacking. The majority opinion states that this proposition — was answered in-a former case involving the same litigants and reported in 248 Fed. 2d 770, 772. With deference to the majority opinion the Lewis ease cited is of tio bearing for the reason that there were no pleadings filed in the first Quality case which raised these issues. The Carter éase pertained to the interpret tation of the Miller Act andthe contract the rein prov ded : “The Trustees had sole power to demand and enforce prampt payment of eployer contributions.’ : ~ There was no such clause in the contracts inv sly ed in wis litigation, and sinee the ¢ ‘arter case involved the interpreta: tion of, the Miller Act relative to construetion work on Federal projects, the Court made. its decisions on matters ‘not in isstie in this case, The E mbassy case is not in point for the reason it is foreign to the Issues at stake. . a bce The majority opinion relative to. indispensable parties is contrary to the. 2nd Circuit, Lewis et al. v. Be nedict Coal Company, 209 Fed. (2), 346, 34, which held the Union . to be indispe ‘nsable parties. It was said; _** Hence we conclude that obligation to make payments to the Trustees was “dependent -upen—performance by the Unions of their obligations, and consequently the. - District Court was. correct in ruling that the Trustees were third party beneficiaries of the contraet. and sub- ject to the defense arising fron) breaches by the Union.*; ‘ ; Since the Union was a signatory to the contract and they were the only ones who could. declare at their option. a violation of the Agreement (Record p. 127), and they did exercise this option on October 13, 1955 (Record p. I ik), then it gops without saying that the Union was indis- _pensable so that! if there were any defenses by reason of illegal strikes, ete., they could have been raised as Was dane in the Benedict case herein cited. VIL. No Trust Was Created and Therefore the Plaintiffs Could Not Bring This Cause of Action. Petitioner. submits that ieee inust he saan of the corpus or there can ‘be no trust. At pages 2 and 3 of the. majority opinion, the € ‘ourt COn- cluded that a trust was created.” With deference to the majority opinion, we’ ary unable to reconcile this rule view of re-statement of\ trusts 1935, Section 76, which h reads: \ x ‘The subject matter of\a rent must be dotidtely ascer- tainahle from the facts existing at the time of the execution of the trust.” Likewise, a clause under said Section 76 provides: ‘A trust cannot be created. if the thing which would . al \ : s y : ° * : y 16 ‘ i f BY a be Joun R. Jerr, ee a N. Grorce Nasser, 24 N. Sixth Street, ae ‘Terre Haute, Indiana, . Attorneys for Petitioner. ¢ ° red --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386420_0083%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.