Hardie-Tynes Mfg. Co. v. Cruse, 610

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
Writing for the CourtSOMERVILLE, J.
Citation189 Ala. 66,66 So. 657
PartiesHARDIE-TYNES MFG. CO. v. CRUSE et al. [*]
Docket Number610
Decision Date07 November 1914

66 So. 657

189 Ala. 66

HARDIE-TYNES MFG. CO.
v.
CRUSE et al. [*]

No. 610

Supreme Court of Alabama

November 7, 1914


Appeal from Chancery Court, Jefferson County; A.H. Benners, Chancellor.

Bill by the Hardie-Tynes Manufacturing Company to enjoin W.D. Cruse and others from interfering with their employés and against a strike. Decree for respondents, and complainant appeals. Reversed and rendered.

The bill of complaint seeks relief against certain of complainant's former employés, who are members of the Molders' Union, and who in co-operation with the union have engaged in a general strike against their employers, including complainant company. It charges that respondents and other fellow unionists have united upon a general plan of action to coerce their former employers to agree to their terms, and to prevent them from employing other members of said union instead of those who had of their own volition left their former service. One of the prominent features of this coercion and intimidation was a system of picketing and controlling an organized espionage upon the works and upon those going to and fro from them which was at once begun, and has been systematically continued, and which it is the purpose of the union, as will hereafter more fully appear, to continue indefinitely, to which picketing and patrolling, especially as respects the works of your orator, further reference will be made hereafter. The general and essential equity of the bill is exhibited by the allegation of paragraph 4:

Orator further alleges that W.D. Cruse (and the other respondents) have been and still are active in picketing and watching its works, together with other members of said lodge, whose names are unknown to orator, some of whom were employés of other machine shops and foundries in the district, and who have unlawfully confederated and conspired together, and are still doing so to prevent orator from successfully carrying on its said business, and to coerce it to accede to their demands against its will, so as to prevent orator from obtaining and retaining other employés who are willing and competent to work for it on mutually satisfactory terms as molders, and thereby either to break up the business of orator, or to compel it to conduct its business under the dictation of said union, and on their terms, and to employ members thereof only, thereby interfering with orator's constitutional right of contract, and that of other artisans who do not belong to said order or unions; in pursuance of which conspiracy, and to carry out their common design members of said union, some of them being the persons hereinbefore named, and others unknown to orator, have attempted to accomplish their unlawful purpose by menaces intimidations, and opprobrious names addressed to orator's workmen, by gathering in crowds about orator's place of business, in the public streets contiguous thereto, and by following its workmen on the street, and applying opprobrious epithets and by acts of violence to the persons of some of them. As a result of such unlawful acts, orator has been deprived of the services of men who were ready and willing to work, and has been injured and impeded in its business; it being, as orator believes and charges, the purpose of said parties and members of said union to continue their unlawful practice if not restrained by the court. Orator alleges that, in order to protect the molders who are working for him from insults and violence by said person so conspiring, they have been compelled to employ deputy sheriffs at considerable expense in order to attend its employés in going to and from their place of business to their boarding houses morning and evening. In pursuance of the same intent and design, said parties above named, or several of them, have gone in front of and into the boarding places of its employés without invitations, and against the will of its employés as well as of the boarding house keepers, and applied to such employés various insults and opprobrious insults, reference to which will be hereafter made

And further by the allegations of paragraph 5, as follows:

Orator further alleges, as showing the course of conduct of said strikers and the nature and character of the picketing and the espionage to which orator's works and workmen have been subjected since, to wit, July 15, 1912, the said strikers have established a picket who come to your orator's place of business from time to time, although not every day. These men usually come in groups of five or six, arriving there as a rule a little while before the time to close work, and remaining there until they have had an opportunity to see and to worry and annoy their workmen. On days when these men do not come to orator's shop, the same men or others go to the shops of other companies in this district as against whom a similar strike is pending, and resort to the same character of abuse and intimidation. Said pickets gather and assemble at the intersections of the streets lying contiguous to orator's property and in front of the office of orator and walk around the works and along the street in front of orator's office. Orator alleges that one of the objects of said picketing is to ascertain what is going on in orator's works and who are working for orator as molders, so that when any of its molders exercise the privilege of going into the business part of the city or become separated from the deputy sheriff, who attends them morning and evening on their trip to and from their boarding houses, members of said union and their sympathizers may identify them and thus be able to intimidate or coerce them, as will be hereafter made more fully to appear; and another object orator alleges is to annoy its workmen by promises, threats, persuasion, and insulting language, and induce them to quit orator's service, and thus injure orator, and thereby compel orator to
re-employ said strikers, the members of said union, upon their terms, and to comply with their demands which they made prior to quitting the service of orator, and orator will hereinafter set forth facts and circumstances that have occurred evidencing these purposes and illustrating the nature and objects of said picketing.

Succeeding paragraphs set out in detail numerous instances of picketing, patrolling, and congregating in crowds near the works of employer companies, including complainant, on the part of respondents and their confederates, accompanied by abuse, threats, intimidation, and actual violence against the employés of complainant and those going to its works to receive employment. Paragraph 12 also charges injury to complainant as follows:

Orator further alleges that, as a result of the wrongful conspiracy and the wrongful acts hereinbefore set forth, its business has been seriously interfered with, that it has been put to a large expense which would have been unnecessary except for such wrongful acts, and, as a result, the good will of its business, which is of large value, will be seriously impaired, if not ruined, if such wrongful conduct is not restrained; and further its damage will be irreparable because, as it alleges, the law furnishes no adequate standard to measure the loss of business sand profits; and orator alleges, furthermore, that said parties are unable from insolvency and want of property, as orator is informed and believes, and upon such information and belief charges, to respond in damages to orator.

The prayer of the bill is as follows:

That a
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
52 practice notes
  • Lehmann v. State Board of Public Accountancy, 3 Div. 567.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • June 29, 1922
    ...injunctive process may be invoked, for one's profession is his capital. Constitution of Alabama, § 1; Hardie-Tynes Mfg. Co. v. Cruise, 189 Ala. 66, 66 So. 657; Franklin Social Club v. Phil Campbell, 204 Ala. 259, 85 So. 527; State v. Goldstein (Ala. App.) 93 So. 308; Hill v. Wallace. 259 U.......
  • Mobile Mechanical Contractors Ass'n v. Carlough, Civ. A. No. 74-409-H.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Alabama
    • August 17, 1978
    ...one's business, without the wrongful and injurious interference of others, is a valuable property right." Hardie-Tynes Mfg. Co. v. Cruse, 189 Ala. 66, 66 So. 657, 660 (1914). The tort of interference with a lawful business survives, and is applicable in labor disputes. International Union, ......
  • Bankers' Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Sloss, 6 Div. 511.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • June 7, 1934
    ...which will be protected, in a proper case and procedure, by injunction, from unlawful interference. Hardie-Tynes Mfg. Co. v. Cruise, 189 Ala. 66, 66 So. 657; Walker v. City of Birmingham, 216 Ala. 206, 112 So. 823; Bowen v. Morris, 219 Ala. 689, 123 So. 222; Walker v. Ferguson, 221 Ala. 549......
  • Hotel & Restaurant Emp. Intern. Alliance v. Greenwood, 6 Div. 515.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • April 24, 1947
    ...is so aimed it is regarded by the courts as lawful. Teller, supra, § 85, p. 249; McAdory Case, supra; Hardie-Tynes Mfg. Co. v. Cruise, 189 Ala. 66, 66 So. 657; authorities in footnote supra. [30 So.2d 700] On this question the American Law Institute, Restatement of the Law of Torts, pp. 118......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
52 cases
  • Lehmann v. State Board of Public Accountancy, 3 Div. 567.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • June 29, 1922
    ...injunctive process may be invoked, for one's profession is his capital. Constitution of Alabama, § 1; Hardie-Tynes Mfg. Co. v. Cruise, 189 Ala. 66, 66 So. 657; Franklin Social Club v. Phil Campbell, 204 Ala. 259, 85 So. 527; State v. Goldstein (Ala. App.) 93 So. 308; Hill v. Wallace. 259 U.......
  • Mobile Mechanical Contractors Ass'n v. Carlough, Civ. A. No. 74-409-H.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Alabama
    • August 17, 1978
    ...one's business, without the wrongful and injurious interference of others, is a valuable property right." Hardie-Tynes Mfg. Co. v. Cruse, 189 Ala. 66, 66 So. 657, 660 (1914). The tort of interference with a lawful business survives, and is applicable in labor disputes. International Union, ......
  • Bankers' Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Sloss, 6 Div. 511.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • June 7, 1934
    ...which will be protected, in a proper case and procedure, by injunction, from unlawful interference. Hardie-Tynes Mfg. Co. v. Cruise, 189 Ala. 66, 66 So. 657; Walker v. City of Birmingham, 216 Ala. 206, 112 So. 823; Bowen v. Morris, 219 Ala. 689, 123 So. 222; Walker v. Ferguson, 221 Ala. 549......
  • Hotel & Restaurant Emp. Intern. Alliance v. Greenwood, 6 Div. 515.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • April 24, 1947
    ...is so aimed it is regarded by the courts as lawful. Teller, supra, § 85, p. 249; McAdory Case, supra; Hardie-Tynes Mfg. Co. v. Cruise, 189 Ala. 66, 66 So. 657; authorities in footnote supra. [30 So.2d 700] On this question the American Law Institute, Restatement of the Law of Torts, pp. 118......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT