Doremus v. Hennessy

• Citation: 54 N.E. 524,176 Ill. 608
• Parties: DOREMUS et al. v. HENNESSY.
• Decision Date: 20 December 1898
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

176 Ill. 608

54 N.E. 524

DOREMUS et al.

v.HENNESSY.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Dec. 20, 1898.

On petition for rehearing. Denied.

For former opinion, see 52 N. E. 924.

*608PHILLIPS, J.

Appellants present their petition for a rehearing of this cause, and have brought to the attention of the court the case of Allen v. Flood [1898] App. Cas. 1, decided by the house of lords, in Great Britain, which was not accessible at the time the opinion in this case was written. Since the petition for rehearing was presented, counsel have procured a full report of that case, and brought the same to the attention of the court. From that case it appears that boiler makers in common employment with the respondents, Flood and another, who were shipwrights working on wood, objected to working with the latter on the ground that in a previous employment they had been engaged on iron work. The appellant, an official of the boiler makers' union, in response to a telegram from one of the boiler makers came to the yard and dissuaded the men from immediately leaving their work, as they threatened to do,-intimating that, if they did so, he would do his best to have them deprived of the benefits of the union, and also fined; that they must wait till the matter was settled. The appellant, Allen, then saw the managing director, to whom he said that if the respondents, who were engaged from day to day, were not dismissed, the boiler makers would leave their work or be called out. Respondents were thereupon dismissed. The men so discharged instituted their action against the official of the boiler makers' union, and obtained judgment, which was affirmed by the court of appeals; and on appeal to the house of lords the assistance of the judges was requested, and the question submitted to the judges was: ‘Assuming the evidence to be given by the plaintiffs' witnesses to be correct, was there any evidence of a cause of action fit to be left to the jury?’ Six of the eight judges answered in the affirmative, and two in the negative. It appears there was no contract, as the men were engaged by the day, and were liable to be discharged at the close of any day without a breach of contract; that the only question presented by that case was, ‘Did Allen maliciously induce the company to discharge the plaintiffs, and did he maliciously induce the company not to engage them?’-and it was held, if the defendant's action was in itself lawful, it was not made unlawful by the motive....