149 Cal. 429, S. F. 4194, Goldberg v. Stablemen's Union, Local No. 8760

Docket Nº:S. F. 4194
Citation:149 Cal. 429, 86 P. 806
Opinion Judge:McFARLAND, Judge
Party Name:GOLDBERG, BOWEN & COMPANY, Respondent, v. STABLEMEN'S UNION, LOCAL No. 8760, T. F. FINN et al., Appellants
Attorney:Henry B. Lister, for Appellants. Bush Finnell, for Respondent.
Judge Panel:JUDGES: In Bank. McFarland, J. Shaw, J., Lorigan, J., Sloss, J., Angellotti, J., Henshaw, J., and Beatty, C. J., concurred.
Case Date:July 12, 1906
Court:Supreme Court of California

Page 429

149 Cal. 429

86 P. 806

GOLDBERG, BOWEN & COMPANY, Respondent,

v.

STABLEMEN'S UNION, LOCAL No. 8760, T. F. FINN et al., Appellants

S. F. No. 4194

Supreme Court of California

July 12, 1906

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. J. C. B. Hebbard, Judge.

COUNSEL

Henry B. Lister, for Appellants.

Bush Finnell, for Respondent.

JUDGES: In Bank. McFarland, J. Shaw, J., Lorigan, J., Sloss, J., Angellotti, J., Henshaw, J., and Beatty, C. J., concurred.

OPINION

McFARLAND, Judge

This is an action for injunction to restrain the defendants, who are members of the Stablemen's Union, Local No. 8760, from doing certain alleged damaging acts to plaintiff, which acts are mostly connected with what is called a "boycott" of plaintiff's business by the defendants. A demurrer on the general ground that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and also on some special grounds, was interposed by defendants. The demurrer was overruled; and defendants declining to

Page 430

answer, judgment was rendered for plaintiff. From this judgment defendants appeal.

We see no merits in the special grounds of demurrer, and do not deem it necessary to specially notice them. The main question is whether the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

The plaintiff was a corporation, and at the time mentioned in the complaint was engaged, at its places of business, "in selling groceries and general household goods to various patrons and customers with whom it had established business relations, and with the public in general, upon whose patronage and trade plaintiff depends for its existence." Its places of business were No. 432 Pine Street, and No. 232 Sutter Street, in the city and county of San Francisco. It also had a place at No. 965 Sutter Street which was used as a stable, in which the horses and vehicles used in carrying on its business were kept and cared for. It is averred that in September, 1904, defendants notified plaintiff at its place of business, No. 432 Pine Street, that plaintiff must continue to pay certain wages to its employees at said [86 P. 807] stable, or defendants would order a strike and cause all of the union stablemen employed by plaintiff, of whom there were many, to quit plaintiff's employment. On or about October 3, 1904, plaintiff notified defendants that it would not comply with said demand, but would exercise the right to pay its said employees what employees in the same kind of work were receiving from their employers. It is further averred that thereupon, and on or about said October 3, 1904, "the said defendants entered into a combination, confederation and conspiracy, for the purpose of coercing plaintiff to subject the control of its business to the said Stablemen's Union, Local No. 8760, and the members thereof, by inaugurating and declaring a boycott on the said business of said plaintiff, and thereupon and on the 3d day of October, 1904, in pursuance of said unlawful combination, confederation and conspiracy, placed and continue to place, representatives or pickets in front of the places of business of plaintiff, carrying placards or transparencies which are false in fact, bearing the words and figures as follows, to wit: "Unfair firm; reduced wages of employees 50c per day. Please don't patronize."

It is further averred "that subsequent to the 3d day of

Page 431

October, 1904, and since the said boycott so ordered as aforesaid by said Stablemen's Union, Local No. 8760, the said Stablemen's Union and the members thereof have conspired, confederated and combined among themselves and with other parties to the plaintiff unknown, and will continue to conspire, confederate and combine among themselves and with other parties to the plaintiff unknown, to provide means and methods for impeding the plaintiff in the conduct and transaction of its aforesaid business, to interfere with employees, not members of said union, employed by said plaintiff, who are engaged in a line of work other than that of stablemen, and to greatly impede and obstruct the plaintiff in carrying on its aforesaid business, and by threats and intimidations by reason of maintaining pickets or representatives in front of the said places of business of plaintiff, compel and force said employees engaged in other lines of work than that of stablemen to quit the services of plaintiff."

It is further averred "that the defendants in furtherance of their said combination, confederation and conspiracy, have placed and continue to place in front of the aforesaid places of business of plaintiff said representatives or pickets, and that said representatives or pickets are for the purpose of not only inducing but intimidating the non-union employees of plaintiff to quit its service, and are for the purpose of intimidating patrons and customers of plaintiff who...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP