Opinion
No. 12216.
June 30, 1948.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Louisiana; Gaston L. Porterie, Judge.
Action by Wavey H. Doyle and others, and by Murrell D. Barton and others, against Division No. 1127 of the Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees of America and Southern Bus Lines, Inc., to establish rights under the re-employment provisions of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, § 8(b) B, 50 U.S.C.A. Appendix, § 308(b) B, wherein Allen M. Duckett and others intervened. From a judgment dismissing the complaint, 76 F. Supp. 655, the plaintiffs appeal.
Affirmed.
Malcolm E. Lafargue, U.S. Atty., and J. Lyle DeBellevue, Asst. U.S. Atty., both of Shreveport, La., for appellants.
LeRoy Smallenberger, of Shreveport, La., Hans J. Lehmann and O. David Zimring, both of Chicago, Ill., and Aubrey B. Hirsch, of Baton Rouge, La., for appellees.
Before HUTCHESON, McCORD, and WALLER, Circuit Judges.
The questions involved here are factual and relate to the date, or dates, upon which the seniority rights of the plaintiffs began. The Judge below made full and definite findings of fact and conclusions of law. His legal conclusions are properly applied to the facts that he had found. No worthwhile service will be rendered to the Bench and bar by a repetition of that which the lower Court has clearly and correctly stated. We cannot say that either the finding of fact that the seniority rights of the nonveteran plaintiffs were acquired upon the dates that they were approved by their employer as inter-city drivers, or the finding of fact that the seniority rights of the exservicemen drivers were not shown by the evidence to have been acquired prior to approval by their employer as inter-city drivers, was clearly erroneous. On the contrary, we think that there is substantial support in the evidence for those findings. Under Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, such findings should be upheld in all instances where we cannot say that they are clearly erroneous.
Lesher v. P.R. Mallary Co., Inc. (Kuhn v. P.R. Mallary Co., Inc., Estes v. P.R. Mallary Co., Inc.) 7 Cir., 166 F.2d 983.
The judgment of the lower Court is affirmed.