Evenson v. Spaulding

• Decision Date: 04 February 1907
• Citation: 150 F. 517
• Parties: EVENSON et al. v. SPAULDING et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

150 F. 517

EVENSON et al. v. SPAULDING et al.

Circuit Court, of Appeals. Ninth Circuit.

February 4, 1907

This is an appeal from an order granting an injunction pendente lite. The bill alleged in substance that the appellees are engaged in the manufacture and sale of buggies and wagons; that their place of manufacture is in the state of Iowa; that for many years they have been engaged in selling their buggies and wagons in other states, including the state of Washington that they have had, during the summer season, agents and salesmen in the state of Washington who travel through the country selling buggies and wagons, especially to farmers and others residing in the rural districts; that their wagons and buggies are strong and especially adapted to the needs of farmers, and have acquired a reputation in the state of Washington as buggies and wagons of high grade and excellent quality, purchasable at reasonable prices, and that such reputation and standing of the appellees in said community in said business is of very great value to them; that a few months prior to the filing of the bill, many of the dealers in hardware and farming implements in eastern Washington conspired and confederated together for the purpose of monopolizing such business in such section, and especially for the purpose of preventing manufacturers and dealers in hardware and farming implements residing without the limits of the state of Washington from selling any of such goods, wares, and merchandise in such state at retail, and to prevent the appellees from selling their buggies and wagons at retail to farmers and others in the rural districts; that said local dealers formed an association under the name of the 'Inland Empire Implement and Hardware Dealers' Association;' that some of the members are dealers in hardware, and are not engaged in the business of selling buggies and wagons or other farming implements, while others are local dealers in farming implements; that the association includes members residing in the counties of Spokane Lincoln, Douglas, Adams, Perry and Okanagan; that the members of such association raised a fund of $10,000, and placed the same in the hands of the appellant Evenson, to be used for the purpose of preventing the appellees from selling any buggies or wagons in eastern Washington at retail; that for several weeks last past the appellees have had about 20 employes engaged in selling buggies and wagons in eastern Washington; that their method of doing business was to drive through the rural districts hauling from two to four wagons and stopping at farmhouses and other places where customers would probably be, offering the same for sale; that before offering said buggies and wagons for sale the appellees paid the taxes thereon as provided by statute, and, in other respects, complied with the statutes of the state of Washington; that said association, through the appellants Evenson, Lucas, and Hay, unlawfully interfered with the business of the appellees, and have threatened, intimidated harassed, and annoyed their employes, and the persons with whom they were transacting business; that they have had said employes followed day and night, so that wherever one of them went, he was dogged, sometimes by one, but generally by two of the employes of said association-- some of said followers being armed with guns and rifles, some of them being unarmed; that whenever the employe of the appellees undertook to converse with a farmer or other probable purchaser, such conversation would be interrupted by the said followers, and the latter would undertake to dissuade such probable purchaser from purchasing goods of the appellees, suggesting that they ought to purchase of resident dealers who resided in the community; that the said followers were not undertaking to sell any buggies or wagons, nor did they claim to represent any competitor of the appellees or any dealer in buggies or wagons; that the sole object and purpose was in all cases to prevent the appellees from making sales, to the end that they might be driven out of business in the state of Washington; that said followers undertook and have undertaken to persuade purchasers to violate their contracts, whereby they have purchased goods from the appellees; that several of such followers, at the instance of said association, have been appointed deputy sheriffs, and one of the agents of the appellees was arrested upon a false and malicious charge of peddling goods without a license by one of the said followers so appointed a deputy sheriff, all at the instance of the association, and in furtherance of said conspiracy; that said conduct on the part of the agents of said association has been carried on for several weeks and numerous sales have been lost as a result thereof, and the employes of the appellees have become alarmed and discouraged, and will, unless said acts of said followers are stopped, quit the employment of the appellees, and the appellees will be unable to further carry on their business in the state of Washington; that, in pursuance of such nefarious scheme, the association has circulated false and slanderous matter concerning the appellees and their buggies and wagons, and have falsely stated that the latter are of inferior quality, and are being sold at a price greatly in excess of prices charged by local dealers, all of which is false and known to be false by the appellants, and that they have circulated stories to the effect that the appellees and their employes are perpetrating frauds on their customers in various ways, which the bill proceeded to set forth. The bill alleged 'that there is no adequate remedy at law, that the value of the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum of more than $25,000, and that your orators have been damaged by the said acts and conduct of said defendants in excess of the sum of $25,000. ' After setting forth that the threatened injury would be irreparable unless stayed by the court, the bill prays for an injunction and for judgment against the appellants for $25,000 and for such further relief as shall be just and proper. With the bill affidavits were filed. Thereafter further affidavits were filed when the matter came on to be heard on the application of the appellees for an injunction pendente lite upon the bill and the affidavits of the appellees and the counter affidavits of the appellants. Upon consideration of the bill and the facts set forth in the affidavits, the court enjoined the appellants pendente lite 'from preceding or following in close range any employe, agent, or servant of the complainants, or the teams used by them or any of them in such manner as to hinder, obstruct, harass, annoy, or intimidate the complainants or any of their employes in the free use of the highway, and from in any other manner occupying said highway in such a manner as to hinder, obstruct, harass, annoy, or intimidate the complainants or any of their employes in the free use thereof; also from approaching or speaking to any actual or supposed customer or c

H. J. Hibschmann and Merritt, Oswald & Merritt, for appellants.

F. T. Post, A. C. Lyon, and H. H. Stipp, for the appellees.

Before GILBERT, ROSS, and MORROW, Circuit Judges.

GILBERT Circuit Judge, after stating the case as above, .

It is earnestly contended that the court had no jurisdiction of the cause, for the reason that it did not appear from the bill that the requisite amount in controversy was involved. As we read the allegation of the amount in controversy, it is that the value of the matter in dispute exceeds $25,000, and that in addition thereto, the appellees have been injured by the acts of the appellants in excess of the sum of $25,000. The statement of the amount involved is made under oath. It is not denied either by plea, answer, or by any affidavit. It is true that the bill does not set up the value of the appellees' business, or specifically allege the extent to which it will be damaged by the acts of the appellants, but it is clear from the averments of the bill that the matter in dispute, the value of which in the complaint is laid at more than $25,000, is the right of the appellees to conduct their business in the state of Washington. The bill sets forth the damages which have been sustained by the...