Bacon v. St. Paul Union Stockyards Co.
| Decision Date | 12 December 1924 |
| Docket Number | No. 24073.,24073. |
| Citation | 161 Minn. 522,201 N.W. 326 |
| Parties | BACON v. ST. PAUL UNION STOCKYARDS CO. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Dakota County; Willard L. Converse, Judge.
Action by Richard S. Bacon against St. Paul Union Stockyards Company. From an order sustaining a demurrer to the complaint, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.
Patrick J. Ryan and Mitchell, Doherty, Rumble, Bunn & Butler, all of St Paul, for appellant.
D. L. Grannis, of South St. Paul, for respondent.
This is an appeal from an order sustaining a demurrer to the complaint on the ground that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
Plaintiff alleges that defendant is a corporation maintaining a livestock yard at which it maintains facilities for loading, unloading, caring for, buying, selling, and dealing in livestock of all kinds. The complaint alleges that since the 1st day of August, 1918, the plaintiff has continually been employed in and about the yards of defendant, and in and about buying, selling, and dealing in livestock therein, and that during said period he was so employed by the Drover Livestock Commission Company, a corporation, and was regularly earning and receiving in his said employment a salary of $200 per month. It further alleges that on July 3, 1923, the defendant wrongfully, unlawfully, and willfully excluded plaintiff from its said stockyards, and barred and prevented him from carrying on his occupation therein, and forbade any person, firm, or corporation to employ him in or about said yards of said defendant, and ever since said time said defendant has continued to bar and exclude plaintiff from said yards, and has prevented livestock dealers there located from employing said plaintiff in or about said yards; that he was at said time and ever since has been able to continue in his said employment in said yards at said salary except for the said action of defendant; and that by reason thereof he has been damaged. Plaintiff alleges that he was entitled to carry on his said employment without any other restriction or limitation which might be imposed upon him by defendant than that he abide by such reasonable and nondiscriminatory rules and regulations as defendant might make and carry out.
The wrongful interference with the contract relations of others causing a breach is a tort. We are of the opinion that the complaint states a cause of action for wrongful interference with plaintiff's...
To continue reading
Request your trial