Bohn Manuf'g Co. v. Hollis

• Decision Date: 20 July 1893
• Citation: 54 Minn. 223,55 N.W. 1119
• Parties: BOHN MANUF'G CO. v HOLLIS ET AL.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

54 Minn. 223

55 N.W. 1119

BOHN MANUF'G CO.vHOLLIS ET AL.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

July 20, 1893.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. Any man (unless under contract obligation, or unless his employment charges him with some public duty) has a right to refuse to work for or deal with any man or class of men, as he sees fit; and this right, which one man may exercise singly, any number may agree to exercise jointly.

2. A large number of retail lumber dealers formed a voluntary association, by which they mutually agreed that they would not deal with any manufacturer or wholesale dealer who should sell lumber directly to consumers, not dealers, at any point where a member of the association was carrying on a retail yard, and provided in their by-laws that, whenever any wholesale dealer or manufacturer made any such sale, their secretary should notify all the members of the fact. The plaintiff having made such a sale, the secretary threatened to send notice of the fact, as provided in the by-laws, to all the members of the association. Held not actionable, and no ground for an injunction.

Appeal from district court, Ramsey county; Cornish, Judge.

Action by the Bohn Manufacturing Company against W. G. Hollis and others for an injunction. From an order denying a motion to dissolve the temporary writ issued, defendants appeal. Reversed.

Wm. A. Lancaster, for appellants.

Warner, Richardson & Lawrence, for respondent.

MITCHELL, J.

The pleadings in this case, and the affidavits read on the motion to dissolve the temporary injunction, are so voluminous, and so abound in mere inferences as to motives and consequences, and in adjectives and other qualifying epithets, as to convey the impression, at first sight, that the facts were both complicated and controverted. But a careful analysis of the record proves that there is no real dispute as to the material facts, which are comparatively simple. Stripped of all extraneous matter, the case discloses just this state of facts: The plaintiff is a manufacturer and vendor of lumber and other building material, having a large and profitable trade at wholesale and retail in this and adjoining states, a large and valuable part of this trade being with the retail lumber dealers. The defendant the Northwestern Lumberman's Association is a voluntary association of retail lumber dealers, comprising from 25 to 50 per cent. of the retail dealers doing business in the states referred to, many of whom are, or have been, customers of the plaintiff. A “retailer,” as definedin the constitution of the association, is “any person who is engaged in retailing lumber, who carries at all times a stock of lumber adequate to the wants of the community, and who regularly maintains an office as a lumber dealer, and keeps the same open at proper times.” Any wholesale dealer or manufacturer of lumber who conforms to the rules of the association may become an honorary member, and attend its meetings, but is not allowed to vote. The object of the association is stated in its constitution to be “the protection of its members against sales by wholesale dealers and manufacturers to contractors and consumers.” The object is more fully stated, and the means by which it is to be carried into effect are fully set out, in sections 3, 3 1/2, 4, and 6 of the by-laws, which are all that we consider material in this case. The plaintiff sold two bills of lumber directly to consumers or contractors at points where members of the association were engaged in business as retail dealers. Defendant Hollis, the secretary of the association, having been informed of this fact, notified plaintiff, in pursuance of section 3 of the by-laws, that he had a claim against it for 10 per cent. of the amount of these sales. Considerable correspondence with reference to the matter ensued, in which the plaintiff, from time to time, promised to adjust the matter, but procrastinated and evaded doing so for so long that finally Hollis threatened that unless plaintiff immediately settled the matter he would send to all the members of the association the lists or notices provided for by section 6 of the by-laws, notifying them that plaintiff refused to comply with the rules of the association, and was no longer in sympathy with it. Thereupon, plaintiff commenced this action for a permanent injunction, and obtained, ex parte, a temporary one, enjoining the defendants from issuing these notices, etc. This appeal is from an order refusing to dissolve the temporary injunction. It is alleged, and in view of the facts must be presumed to be true, that if these notices should be issued the members of the association would thereafter refuse to deal with the plaintiff, thereby resulting in loss to it of gains and profits.

The case presents one phase of a subject which is likely to be one of the most important and difficult which will confront the courts during the next quarter of a century. This is the age of associations and unions, in all departments of labor and business, for purposes of mutual benefit and protection. Confined to proper limits, both as to end and means, they are not only lawful, but laudable. Carried beyond those limits, they are liable to become dangerous agencies for wrong and oppression. Beyond what limits these associations or combinations cannot go, without interfering with the legal rights of others, is the problem which, in various phases, the courts will doubtless be frequently called to pass upon. There is, perhaps, danger that, influenced by such terms of illusive meaning as “monopolies,” “trusts,” “boycotts,” “strikes,” and the like, they may be led to transcend the limits of their jurisdiction, and, like the court of king's bench in Bagg's Case, 11 Coke, 98a, assume that, on general principles, they have authority to correct or reform everything which they may deem wrong, or, as Lord Ellsmere puts it, “to manage the state.” But whatever doubts or difficulties may arise in other cases, presenting other phases of the general subject involved here, it seems to us that there can be none on the facts of the present case. Both the affidavits and brief in behalf of the plaintiff indulge in a great deal of strong, and even exaggerated, assertion, and in many words and expressions of very indefinite and illusive meaning, such as “wreck,” “coerce,” “extort,” “conspiracy,” “monopoly,” “drive out of business,” and the like. This looks very formidable, but in law, as well as in mathematics, it simplifies things very much to reduce them to their lowest terms. It is conceded that retail lumber yards in the various cities, towns, and villages are not only a public convenience, but a public necessity; also, that, to enable the owners to maintain these yards, they must sell their lumber at a reasonable profit. It also goes without saying that to have manufacturers or wholesale dealers sell at retail, directly to consumers, in the territory upon which the retail dealer depends for his customers, injuriously affects and demoralizes his...