124 Cal. 99, S. F. 1177, Davitt v. American Bakers' Union

Docket Nº:S. F. 1177
Citation:124 Cal. 99, 56 P. 775
Opinion Judge:GAROUTTE, Judge
Party Name:JOHN B. DAVITT et al., Appellants, v. AMERICAN BAKERS' UNION, etc., et al., Respondents
Attorney:M. Cooney, for Appellants. George W. Monteith, for Respondents.
Judge Panel:JUDGES: Garoutte, J. Harrison, J., and Van Dyke, J., concurred.
Case Date:March 24, 1899
Court:Supreme Court of California

Page 99

124 Cal. 99

56 P. 775

JOHN B. DAVITT et al., Appellants,

v.

AMERICAN BAKERS' UNION, etc., et al., Respondents

S. F. No. 1177

Supreme Court of California

March 24, 1899

Department One

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. George H. Bahrs, Judge.

COUNSEL:

M. Cooney, for Appellants.

George W. Monteith, for Respondents.

JUDGES: Garoutte, J. Harrison, J., and Van Dyke, J., concurred.

OPINION

GAROUTTE, Judge

Page 100

Action for damages and perpetual injunction. A general and special demurrer was interposed to the complaint and sustained. Plaintiffs declined to amend, and judgment went against them. This appeal is from the judgment and also from the order dissolving the temporary injunction. A verified answer was filed with the demurrer. The complainant alleged that plaintiffs were copartners carrying on the bakery business; "that for the purpose of injuring plaintiff's business, and to compel them to discharge their employees, defendants have for more than sixty days last past resolved upon and conspired together. .. . and to that end and for that purpose defendants have attempted, by force, menace, and threats, to intimidate said workmen, and to prevent them from working for the plaintiffs." It is further alleged that defendants have likewise attempted, by force, menace, and threats, to compel the plaintiffs to discharge said employees; that defendants in various ways have maliciously attempted to destroy the said business of plaintiffs, and still threaten the

Page 101

destruction of plaintiff's business. It is further alleged "that the said defendants during said period have maliciously continued to publish, or cause to be printed and published, distributed, and circulated, false and malicious publications and circulars upon the said premises of the plaintiffs, and in front of and in the vicinity of their said place of business, for the purpose of preventing them from carrying on their said business, and to prevent persons from dealing with them, as well as to intimidate both the plaintiffs and their employees in their conduct of the business, and in the performance of their work, and they threaten to continue to do so."

In the face of the demurrer interposed in this case the complaint must fall. Possibly, the complaint is not sufficient to stand, even against...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP