"For
cause of action plaintiff states that the defendant is now
and at all times hereinafter stated was, a corporation under
the laws of the state of New Jersey and doing a life
insurance business in the state of Missouri under license
from the insurance department of said state, and has an
office in the city of St. Louis in charge of a superintendent
or manager.
"That
plaintiff for more than 10 years last past has been engaged
as solicitation agent in the business of industrial and
ordinary life insurance, and is not experienced in other
lines of business, or qualified to earn his living except in
the said business of soliciting applications and collecting
premiums in the department of life insurance. Plaintiff is
now, and has been for more than 8 years past, a citizen and
resident of the city of St. Louis, and has no such
acquaintance as would enable him to secure employment, except
in the line above stated and in the city of St. Louis.
"Plaintiff
stated that heretofore, to wit, in the month of June, 1808,
he entered into the employ of the defendant, and continued in
the employment of said defendant up to heretofore, to wit,
December 7, 1911, when he resigned the said employment and
left the services of defendant; that during the entire period
of his employment as aforesaid, he served said company in
different capacities, sometimes as assistant superintendent
of a department, sometimes as collector, and solicitor, and
the said company had no cause, and never claimed to have any
cause, for dissatisfaction with the services rendered by
plaintiff.
"Plaintiff
states that he had been in the service of said defendant
corporation for a period exceeding 90 days, to wit, for 14
years, and on the 3d day of October, 1912, demanded a letter
from the superintendent of defendant in the city of St.
Louis, setting forth the nature and character of the services
rendered by plaintiff to such corporation and the duration
thereof, and truly stating for what cause plaintiff had quit
such service. Plaintiff states that heretofore, to wit, on
said 3d day of October, 1912, said defendant, through its
superintendent, or manager, of its business in the said city
of St. Louis, refused to give plaintiff such a letter as is
provided by statute, and plaintiff states that at divers and
sundry times between December 7, 1911, and, to wit, October
3, 1912, defendant, through its superintendent and manager in
said city of St. Louis, also refused to give plaintiff the
letter required by said statute, although demand was made by
plaintiff for the same.
"Plaintiff
states that because of said refusal to give plaintiff the
letter required by the statute as aforesaid, he had been
unable to secure employment from other life insurance
companies in the city of St. Louis in his line of business,
and whereas before leaving said service of defendant he was
able to earn, to wit, from $ 100 to $ 130 per month, be line
been unable to secure employment in his said line of business
because of said refusal, and has been damaged in the sum of $
2,000.
"Plaintiff
states that said refusal on the part of said defendant,
through its said superintendent, or manager, to give him the
said letter required by statute was willful. Wherefore
plaintiff asks judgment for the sum of $ 2,000 actual, and $
3,000 punitive, damages.
"And
for a second and further cause of action plaintiff states
that the defendant is now, and was at all the times
hereinafter stated, a corporation under the laws of New
Jersey, and duly licensed to do a life insurance business in
the state of Missouri and maintaining an office in the city
of St. Louis in said state.
"Plaintiff
states that the defendant is engaged in the business of
industrial and ordinary life insurance, employing a large
number of solicitors and agents, and its chief competitors
are the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company of the state of
New York and the John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company
of the state of Maxsachusetts, defendant, and said other two
companies having a monopoly of the industrial life insurance
business in the city of St. Louis.
"Plaintiff
states that he has for the last 14 years been engaged in the
business of soliciting applications and collecting premiums,
and assisting in superintending the business of industrial
life insurance, and during most of that time has been in the
employ of said defendant. Plaintiff states that he is now 50
years old, and bus no other means of earning a livelihood,
except in the business in which he has been engaged for the
period aforesaid, and during the said period his carnings
have ranged from $ 100 to $ 130 per month.
"Plaintiff
states that heretofore, to wit, on or about December 7, 1911,
he resigned from the service of the defendant and sought
employment in the same line of business from other
corporations engaged in the business of industrial life
insurance in the said city of St. Louis, particularly the
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and the John Hancock
Mutual Life Insurance Company. Plaintiff states that he was
unable to obtain employment with any of the said companies
because of an agreement between them that neither would, for
a period of 2 years from an employe leaving the employ of any
other, employ any man who had, for any reason, left the
service of, or been discharged by, either of the other of
said companies. Plaintiff states that he could have found
employment in his line of business with some one of the other
companies, as aforesaid, if it were not for the said unlawful
agreement between the said companies, and plaintiff charges
that the said agreement entered into by the said defendant
and said other companies was unlawful, for the reason that it
amounted to a practical blacklisting of such employe who had
left the service of such company. Plaintiff states that, not
only has he been unable to obtain employment because of said
agreement, but in bringing this suit this plaintiff has
precluded himself from obtaining employment with either of
said companies, or any other engaged in a similar business,
because be has been and will be blacklisted by the said
defendant.
"Plaintiff
states that because of said unlawful conspiracy and agreement
on the part of defendant and said other two companies, he has
suffered damage by being unable to secure employment, in the
sum of $ 3,000.
"Plaintiff
further states that said action of defendant in entering into
said agreement, whereby he was prevented from obtaining
employment because of the unlawful agreement aforesaid was
willful. Wherefore plaintiff asks judgment for
the sums of $ 3,000 actual damages and for $ 5,000 punitive
damages."
