Garst v. Charles

• Decision Date: 05 January 1905
• Citation: 72 N.E. 839,187 Mass. 144
• Parties: GARST v. CHARLES.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

187 Mass. 144

72 N.E. 839

GARST v. CHARLES.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Worcester.

January 5, 1905

COUNSEL

Webster Thayer, Hollis W. Cobb, and Fred A. Walker, for plaintiff.

E. H Vaughan, for respondent.

OPINION

KNOWLTON C.J.

The plaintiff, being the owner and manufacturer of a proprietary medicine known as 'phenyo-caffein,' sold it to purchasers only under contracts in which they agreed not to sell it at retail at less than a specified price, and he undertook to stipulate that purchasers from his purchasers should obtain and sell it only under such an agreement. His right to secure such advantages to himself, so far as possible, by contracts in proper form, is not now questioned. See Garst v. Harris, 177 Mass. 72, 58 N.E. 174; Park & Sons Co. v. The National Wholesale Druggists' Association, 54 A.D. 223, 64 N.Y.S. 276; 66 N.Y.S. 615. The defendant is a retail druggist, who knew that all phenyo-caffein was sold by the plaintiff under the contracts referred to, and with notices affixed to the small boxes and to the larger packages showing the understanding of the plaintiff and of the purchasers as to the price at which it might be sold. After buying a quantity of medicine from the plaintiff, he returned it, in accordance with the terms of his contract, under which he had a right to return it if he wished to discontinue the business of selling it, and he notified the plaintiff's agents that he should not keep the medicine. He then procured one Bickford, who was a retail druggist, to buy a large quantity of the medicine from the plaintiff's agents, and Bickford entered into a contract such as has been referred to, and agreed that he would fulfill all the terms of the contracts and notices affixed to the boxes and packages, one of which was that he would act as the agent of the plaintiff, and would not sell the medicine at less than the specified price. He purchased the goods at a much less price, which was the discount rate made by the manufacturer to the retail trade, as stated in the contract. He then turned it over to the defendant at the purchase price, and the defendant has been selling it and advertising it for sale at retail at less than the specified price All this was in pursuance of a conspiracy between the defendant and Bickford that Bickford should make this contract and should break it, to the injury of the plaintiff for the benefit of the defendant. A conspiracy to deprive one of the benefit of a contract with another is unlawful. Carew v. Rutherford, 106 Mass. 1, 8 Am. Rep. 287; Walker v. Cronin, 107 Mass. 555; Vegelahn v Guntner, 167 Mass. 92, 44 N.E. 1077, 35 L. R. A. 722, 57 Am. St. Rep. 443; Plant v. Woods, 176 Mass. 492, 57 N.E. 1011, 51 L. R. A. 339, 79 Am. St. Rep. 330. The defendant's arrangement with Bickford that he should break the contract was a wrong upon the plaintiff, intended for the defendant's advantage....