Bowen v. Morris

• Decision Date: 27 June 1929
• Docket Number: 8 Div. 82.
• Citation: 123 So. 222,219 Ala. 689
• Parties: BOWEN v. MORRIS ET AL.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

123 So. 222

219 Ala. 689

BOWEN v. MORRIS ET AL.

8 Div. 82.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 27, 1929

Appeal from Circuit Court, Morgan County; James E. Horton, Judge.

Bill to enjoin suit at law and issuance of garnishment in aid thereof by M. E. Bowen against G. L. Morris and J. M. Minor. From a decree dissolving a temporary injunction, complainant appeals. Reversed, rendered, and remanded.

E. W Godbey, of Decatur, for appellant.

W. H Long, of Decatur, for appellees.

BOULDIN J.

Appeal from decree dissolving a temporary injunction for want of equity in the bill.

The bill of complaint, to state its essence, makes the following case:

Complainant is now, and has for 16 years been, employed as a trainman of Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company; for the past 11 years has been a locomotive fireman, earning fairly lucrative wages. Complainant and family are dependent on such wages for a livelihood.

A rigid custom of the employer is to discharge an employé whose wages are garnished for the third time. Two garnishments have been run, and a third would result in his discharge.

Some six months prior to filing the bill, complainant borrowed from respondent Morris $8 and no more, giving a note for $10. Semimonthly thereafter complainant paid $6 for 5 1/2 months on account of such loan, and a further payment of $15. Notwithstanding this loan was long overpaid, and complainant owed no other debt, respondent presented a bill through a justice of the peace, who is also made respondent, for some $91, and under threat to "tie you up and get your job" complainant was induced to execute a new note with waiver of exemptions, and carrying an assignment of wages as security therefor. If such assignment is "turned in" to the employer, this will result in complainant's discharge. The bill avers further demands for payment, and that unless restrained respondents will cause his wages to be garnished, and consequent loss of employment. Complainant has no contract for a definite term of service. While denying any indebtedness, complainant offers to do equity and pay any sum found due.

The injunction prayed and issued restrained respondents from causing to issue any writ of garnishment against the employer and from turning in the assignment of wages. The bill further prayed that the court ascertain whether complainant owed anything and the amount thereof, permit the payment of same into court, make the injunction perpetual, and decree general relief.

If these allegations be true, has complainant a case for injunctive relief?

Is the remedy at law complete and adequate within the rules defining equity jurisdiction?

If respondent's claim is spurious, if his present note and security was acquired without consideration and pursuant to the oppressive methods of the "loan shark" as averred, complainant can show such facts and defeat the garnishment suit, as well as sue on the garnishment bond or in case for legal damages. The controlling question is: Does the wrongful action threatening the relation between the complainant and his employer justify resort to injunction?

The right to conduct one's business without the wrongful interference of others is a valuable property right which will be protected, if necessary, by injunctive process. Hardie-Tynes Mfg. Co. v. Cruise, 189 Ala. 66, 66 So 657.

We have declared a competitor in business injuriously affected by a course of business pursued by his rival in violation of a duty to the public is entitled to injunctive relief. Tallassee Oil & Fertilizer Co. v. H. S. & J. L Holloway, 200 Ala. 492, 76 So. 434, L. R. A. 1918A, 280. See, generally, 32 C.J. 155, § 209.

One's employment, trade, or calling is likewise a property right, and the wrongful interference therewith is an actionable wrong. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Millonas, 206 Ala. 147, 89 So. 732, 29 A. L. R. 520; Tenn. Coal & Iron Co. v. Kelly, 163 Ala. 348, 50 So. 1008; Sparks v. McCreary, 156 Ala. 382, 47 So. 332, 22 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1224.

The Millonas Case, supra, involved the wrongful procurement of the discharge of an employé. That the employé had no defined tenure of service, but the relation was subject to termination at the will of the parties, was held not to defeat the right of action. It was further held that under the circumstances of that case, damages were recoverable for mental anguish. We note the authorities cited in support of our ruling on this point are Lopez v. Connolly, 210 Mass. 487, 97 N.E. 80, 38 L. R. A. (N. S.) 986, and Doucette v. Sallinger, 228 Mass. 444, 117 N.E. 897.

In the later case of Raulins v. Levi, 232 Mass. 42, 121 N.E. 500, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has declared that presenting to the employer an assignment of wages which had ceased to be force was oppressive, and the employé is entitled to an injunction and cancellation.

Ferrell v. E. W. Greenway & Co., 157 Ga. 535, 122 S.E. 198, is quite on all fours with this...