The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York affirmed. 269 A.D. 805, 56 N.Y.S.2d 195. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed. 295 N.Y. 601, 664, 64 N.E.2d 350, 65 N.E.2d 54. On appeal to this Court, reversed, p. 777.No. 76. A New York state court dismissed a suit by an employer whose business was predominantly interstate for a declaratory judgment decreeing that the New York State Labor Relations Board was without jurisdiction to determine representation of its foremen and enjoining the Board from ordering the employer to bargain collectively with their union. 184 Misc. 47, 49 N.Y.S.2d 762. The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York affirmed. 269 A.D. 805. 56 N.Y.S.2d 196 . The Court of Appeals of New York affirmed. 295 N.Y. 607, 64 N.E.2d 352. On appeal to this Court, reversed and remanded, p. 777.Bruce Bromley argued the cause for appellants in No. 55. With him on the brief were Daniel J. Kenefick, John H. Morse and Lyman M. Bass.

New York Handkerchief Manufacturing Co. v. N.L.R.B., 7 Cir., 114 F.2d 144, 148, certiorari denied 311 U.S. 704, 61 S. Ct. 170, 85 L.Ed. 457. In Alleghany Ludlum Steel Corp. v. Kelley et al., 184 Misc. 47, 49 N.Y.S.2d 762, the court held that the adoption by the National Board of a definite policy of refusing to recognize foremen unions or groups as appropriate bargaining units did not prevent the New York State Labor Relations Board from certifying a Union as the collective bargaining agent for the foremen of the Alleghany Ludlum Steel Corporation's plant at Dunkirk, New York. This holding was affirmed by the Court of Appeals of New York in 295 N.Y. 607, 64 N.E.2d 352.

May 2, 1945. Present — Taylor, P.J., Dowling, McCurn, Larkin and Love, JJ. [ 184 Misc. 47.] Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.

U.S. 1; Matter of Davega-City Radio v. Labor Board, 281 N.Y. 13; cf. Edison Co. v. Labor Board, 305 U.S. 197). More particularly, the Supreme Court of the United States has sustained the applicability of a State antitrust act while the Sherman Act was in effect, although that State act affected interstate commerce ( Standard Oil Co. v. Tennessee, 217 U.S. 413). Indeed, the joint applicability of the Sherman Act and State antitrust legislation has scarcely ever been questioned ( Paine Lumber Co. v. Neal, 212 F. 259, affd. 214 F. 82, affd. 244 U.S. 459; Straus v. Am. Publishers' Assn., 231 U.S. 222). The only discernible limits upon State action affecting interstate commerce, where similar and consistent Federal legislation exists, are: (1) that some local interests be involved: and (2) that no Federal agency has acted with respect to the particular matter being considered by the State agency ( Welch Co. v. New Hampshire, 306 U.S. 79; Matter of Davega-City Radio v. Labor Board, supra; Alleghany Ludlum Steel Corp. v. Kelley, 184 Misc. 47, affd. 269 A.D. 805). Neither of these limitations forecloses action under the Donnelly Act in the instant case. It is clear that the exhibition and display of these motion pictures is of substantial local significance, regardless of the interstate commerce activities involved in making films available for such exhibition and display.