Hawarden v. Youghiogheny & L. Coal Co.

• Decision Date: 15 October 1901
• Citation: 111 Wis. 545,87 N.W. 472
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
• Parties: HAWARDEN v. YOUGHIOGHENY & L. COAL CO. ET AL.

111 Wis. 545

87 N.W. 472

HAWARDEN

v.YOUGHIOGHENY & L. COAL CO. ET AL.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Oct. 15, 1901.

Appeal from circuit court, Douglas county; A. Vinje, Judge.

Action by Edward Hawarden against the Youghiogheny & Lehigh Coal Company and others. From an order overruling defendants' demurrer as to the first cause of action stated in the complaint the Youghiogheny & Lehigh Coal Company appeals, and from an order sustaining the demurrer as to the second cause of action plaintiff appeals. Affirmed on defendants' appeal, and reversed on plaintiff's appeal.

The plaintiff's complaint in this action attempts to state two causes of action: (1) A cause of action at law by the plaintiff, a retail coal dealer at Superior, to recover damages of the defendants by reason of the malicious destruction of his business, resulting from an alleged conspiracy on the part of the defendants; and (2) a cause of action in equity by the plaintiff on his own behalf and on behalf of many others similarly situated to restrain the further enforcement of the alleged conspiracy. There are twenty-three defendants, who are divided into two classes; the first class being composed of certain foreign corporations and their agents at Superior, Wis., who are termed in the complaint as “wholesalers,” and the second class composed of certain retail coal dealers in Superior, who are called “retailers.” The first alleged cause of action states, in substance: That “between August 1, 1900, and September 15th, the wholesalers united and confederated themselves into a trust and combination in restraint of trade and commerce, and renewed and extended the scope of a previously existing concert, and created an active, vicious, and damaging trust and monopoly designed to limit, manipulate, and control the retail coal trade in and about the city of Superior, and to hinder and embarrass the plaintiff in his means of livelihood, and to damage his property. That prior to September 15th the coal trade at Superior was carried on upon this plan: The wholesalers did not directly solicit retail trade of consumers, but sold to all retail dealers at the market price, and they resold to the public for gain at such price as they saw fit, without interference or restriction from the wholesalers. That after September 15th the wholesalers refused to sell plaintiff coal at any price, and they still refuse to do so, and the retailers refuseto sell him coal at wholesale rates, and they arrogate to themselves the privilege of retailing coal in Superior, backed up, as aforesaid, by the wholesalers. That the wholesalers gave exclusive right to retail coal from their docks to the retailers, and determine at what dock any retailer should be permitted to buy coal and what not, and of whom they should not be allowed to purchase.” The complaint further alleges “that the limitation of retailers was for the purpose of controlling retail prices of coal in Superior, to force out of the retail coal trade all persons obnoxious to the wholesalers, and among others the plaintiff, to secure large profits to the wholesalers and the retailers, to deprive the public of free competition in the retail coal trade, to create and maintain a monopoly of the coal trade; that the retailers agreed with the wholesalers not to cut retail prices of coal, to sell coal at prices prescribed by the wholesalers, to not invade each other's territory, to purchase coal at certain docks, not to sell for the purpose of resale to any person not elected by the wholesalers to the privilege of retailing coal in Superior, to not enter into price competition among themselves, to pay for all their purchases in cash, to forego the honorable name of retail coal merchants and assume the name of sales agents, to not do anything or suffer anything to be done to overthrow said trust and open the doors to free competition; that on or about the 10th day of September, 1900, the wholesalers and retailers put said contract, agreement, and understanding in force against the plaintiff and the public; that the refusal to sell coal to the plaintiff is done in pursuance of, and to carry out the purposes of, said combination, and for no other reason; that about two-thirds of all fuel used in Superior is coal bought directly or indirectly of the wholesalers; that the wholesalers own practically all the coal docks in Superior, Wis., and Duluth, Minn., engaged in local trade at those points; that at the same time the action of the wholesalers and the retailers forced out of business 10 or more other retail coal dealers in Superior, and thereby they have established a monopoly of the coal trade in the city, against the law of this state, and raised the price of coal to the people of Superior; that the plaintiff, Edward Hawarden, in December, 1898, purchased a two-thirds interest in the established retail coal business of James B. Collins and wife at Superior, and of the teams, tools, office, and appliances used by said Collins and wife in that trade; that Collins and wife had an established retail trade in coal, based upon the right of any person to go into business and to buy of the wholesalers at the market price for retail for all times; that Hawarden and Collins carried on the business until June, 1900, when Hawarden bought out Collins and the good will of the business; that the profits of their business during the seasons from September to June was $40 a month, and his profits from September, 1900, to April 1, 1901, would have been $55 a month; that, as a result of said conspiracy, plaintiff, Hawarden, was forced out of the business, and his trade destroyed, thereby suffering damage in the sum of $500.” In the second and equitable cause of action the allegations of the first cause of action as to the character of the parties and formation and object of the conspiracy and its effects are substantially repeated, and it is further alleged that not only the plaintiff, but many other retail coal dealers in Superior, of whom eight are named, were forced out of business by reason of the conspiracy, and that the defendants intend to continue the conspiracy...