Perfect Laundry Co. v. Marsh
New Jersey Court of Chancery
1Opinion of the Court
Complainant proposed to reduce the wages of its routemen; their repartee was a demand for an increase. Rebuffed, they walked out in a body. The strikers are not members of any union; they number only sixteen, and their places in complainant's organization were immediately filled. So they have called for aid on the customers whom they formerly served, and have distributed among them printed notices reading:
"Perfect Laundry routemen on strike for a living wage. Kindly co-operate by not sending your bundle to the Perfect Laundry.
Thank you, Your Routeman."
The strikers have also orally told…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Beck v. Railway Teamsters' Protective UnionMichigan Supreme Court · 1898
- Marx & Haas Jeans Clothing Co. v. WatsonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1902
- State v. Van PeltSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1904
- People v. . HughesNew York Court of Appeals · 1893
- Local Union No. 313, Hotel & Restaurant Employees v. StathakisSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1918
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Newark Ladder, C. v. Furniture Workers, C.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1939
- John R. Thompson v. DelicatessenNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1939
- McPherson Hotel Co. v. SmithNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1940
- E.L. Kerns Co. v. LandgrafNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1939