Club v. Doctor Blosser Co

• Decision Date: 25 March 1905
• Parties: EMPLOYING PRINTERS' CLUB et al. v. DOCTOR BLOSSER CO.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

132 Ga. 509

50 S.E. 353

EMPLOYING PRINTERS' CLUB et al.

v.DOCTOR BLOSSER CO.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

March 25, 1905.

CONSPIRACY—BIGHT OF ACTION—INJUNCTION— BREACH OF CONTRACT—PROCUREMENT— ILLEGAL AGREEMENT.

1. A combination of two or more persons to injure one in his trade by inducing his employes to break their contract with him, or to decline to longer continue in his employment, is, if it results in damage, actionable.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 10, Cent. Dig. Conspiracy, § 9.]

2. A former member of an illegal combination, whose connection with it was severed before the filing of the suit, will not be denied the protection of a court of equity against an illegal act of such combination because of his previous connection therewith.

3. The malicious procurement of a breach of contract of employment resulting in damage, where the procurement was during the subsistence of the contract, is an actionable wrong.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 34, Cent. Dig. Master and Servant, § 1283.]

4. A court of equity will interpose by injunction to prevent the several members of an illegal combination from enforcing an Illegal agreement to the hurt and injury of one engaged in competitive business.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from Superior Court, Fulton County; J. H. Lumpkin, Judge.

Action by the Doctor Blosser Company against the Employing Printers' Club and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error. Affirmed.

Smith & Wright, for plaintiffs in error.

Koutz & Austin and Howard Van Epps, for defendant in error.

EVANS, J. The Doctor Blosser Company, a corporation, brought an action against a number of printing concerns using the club or trade name of the "Employing Printers' Club of Atlanta, " and composed of individuals, firms, "and corporations engaged in the book and job printing trade In the city of Atlanta, and whose names are set out in the record, asking an Injunction and praying damages. The court granted the injunction, and exception Is taken to this order. On the Interlocutory hearing the defendants urged by demurrer the insufficiency of the facts pleaded to authorize the relief prayed. Notwithstanding the demurrer admitted the truth of all the facts which were well pleaded, the plaintiff submitted proof tending to sustain all the essential allegations.

1-3. The complaint is that the defendants formed a combination among the employing printers to control and fix the price of printing done in the city of Atlanta, and, because the plaintiff refused to affiliate with the combination, they wrongfully interfered with the plaintiff's business, and maliciously induced its employes to break their contracts with it, and refuse to continue in its employment, to Its injury and damage. A combination of Individuals engaged in a particular line of business to compel one engaged In a similar business to sell his product at prices fixed by It is contrary to public policy, and void; and the members of such a combination, individually and collectively, may, by appropriate injunction, be restrained from wrongfully interfering with the business of the one who is not a member of the combination. This principle is laid down in the well-considered case of Brown & Allen v. Jacobs Pharmacy Company, 115 Ga. 429, 41 S. E. 553, 57 L. R. A. 547, 90 Am. St, Rep. 126, is supported both by reason and authority, and its application to the case in hand Is readily apparent.

The facts alleged in the petition were as follows: The plaintiff was engaged in the city of Atlanta in the general business of a printer for the public, enjoying a large trade and doing a prosperous business. The defendants were also engaged In the printing business, and formed a combination or trust, called the "Employing Printers' Club of Atlanta, Georgia." This combination embraced nearly the entire printing and publishing fraternity of Atlanta except the newspapers, and its organization was "for the single and sole purpose of restraining trade, of absolutely defeating and destroying competition among bidders for printing of any sort to be done in the city of Atlanta, and for maintaining an arbitrary and extortionate scale of prices upon any contracts that might be received for work done in the city." This combination or club had a written constitution and by-laws, a copy of which was appended to the petition. Among the objects of the club, as recited in its constitution, was "the maintenance of legitimate prices, the suppression of undue rivalry, and mutual protection from abuses or infringement upon our rights by others." The rules provided for a fixed minimum scale of prices, that no member should give any rebate or concession to a customer, and for a uniform discount only to other members of the association. Rule 8 was: "Never give customer an itemized estimate." The scheme of the defendants, who confederated under the name of the "Employing Printers' Club, " was as follows: If a customer desiring to have printing or publishing done made application for a bid to any one of the members constituting the club, it was the understanding and agreement among all of the members thereof that the printer receiving the bid for work should name the price for which he was willing to undertake It, and thereupon should list the application, the name of the customer, and the proposition for doing the work, giving a complete description of the Job to a manager appointed for that very purpose, and salaried by the members of the combination; and they in turn were bound severally to each other that, If they were also Invited to make competitive bids, they would fix the price for such equal to or higher than that proposed by the first printer receiving the application and listing the bid It was al-leged that the combination enforced a rule between themselves, establishing a systematic way of handling the public printing for the city of Atlanta, under the operation of which each printer was to have his turn; the manager to keep track of this branch of the business, and notify the different members, when the city of Atlanta asked for bids, whose turn it was to do the work. They were to make the price and add 10 per cent, and charge the city not only the fixed, arbitrary price, but also the additional 10 per cent, on the fixed price. It was alleged that a committee from the Employing Printers' Club, who also represented the defendants, as members of the club, waited on the plaintiff, and advised its officers that it could not continue to employ union labor in its shop unless it became a member of the club. Plaintiff Inquired of the committee the purpose and scope of the club, and was informed that it was a secret institution, and that it was necessary to become a member before its secrets could be imparted. To prevent being deprived of union labor, which was the only labor obtainable, and ignorant of the real purposes of the club, the plaintiff became a member thereof. About October 1, 1901, plaintiff made a contract with the managers of the Wesleyan Christian Advocate to publish that periodical, and was proceeding to execute the contract, when it was notified by the Employing Printers' Club that it had violated the rules of the club in accepting such contract, and was fined $468 for taking the contract. The club decided that the right to print that 'periodical belonged to the Foote & Davies Company, one of the defendants, and that the plaintiff should not have underbid that company. In addition to imposing the fine, the club ruled that at the end of the year 1902 the publication price of the Advocate for the year 1903 should be fixed by the Foote & Davies Company. The plaintiff was dissatisfied with this ruling, and resigned its membership in the club, whereupon plaintiff was notified by a committee from the club that, unless it paid the fine and came back into the club, all union labor would be called out of its shop. The plaintiff, persisting in its refusal to resume relationship with the club, was assured by a committee from the club that it had been reorganized on a legal basis. Upon this assurance the plaintiff resumed its membership in the club, and the fine was reduced to $125. The major part of this fine was paid, and plaintiff resumed its membership because of the threat to call out the union labor from its shop, and to avoid the damages incident to the loss of this class of labor. In October, 1902, the Wesleyan Christian Advocate's managers applied to the plaintiff to print that paper during the year 1903, stating that they were aware of the existence of the printers' combination, but before they would pay more than they were paying they would withdraw their work from Atlanta, and place it elsewhere. Thereupon the plaintiff made them a bid which afforded a reasonable net profit on the proposed work. The Employing Printers' Club then met and sat in judgment on the plaintiff's action in taking the contract for the second time for the publication of this periodical, and adjudged that the plaintiff pay the Foote & Davies Company $300 in cash to partly reimburse it for the loss of the profit on the publication of the Wesleyan Christian Advocate, and that the naming of the price for the publishing of this periodical "revert irrevocably" to the Foote & Davies Company at the expiration of the present contract Several attempts were made to induce the plaintiff to comply with this edict and it was threatened that, if it did not comply, the club would cause all union labor to leave its employment. The plaintiff refused to comply with the club's demand, and declined to affiliate longer with the club as a member, notifying it of this resolve. Then the club caused the pressmen, feeders, printers, and binders employed by the plaintiff to quit work, thereby shutting down the plaintiff's establishment, and rendering it impossible for it to conduct its business, or to execute existing contracts, or to undertake further employment in the line of its trade....