Hundley v. Louisville & N.R. Co.

• Decision Date: 13 December 1898
• Citation: 48 S.W. 429,105 Ky. 162
• Parties: HUNDLEY v. LOUISVILLE & N. R. CO. [1]
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

48 S.W. 429

105 Ky. 162

HUNDLEY v. LOUISVILLE & N. R. CO. ^[1]

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

December 13, 1898

Appeal from circuit court, Marion county.

"To be officially reported."

Action by John Hundley against the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company to recover damages for wrongful acts of defendant whereby he has been prevented from obtaining employment. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

H. P Cooper, for appellant.

Edward W. Hines, H. W. Bruce, W. C. McChord, and Leslie & McChord for appellee.

PAYNTER J.

It is averred in the petition as amended that the plaintiff has no trade or calling except railroading; that for the past five years he has been in the employment of the defendant; that while engaged in the discharge of his duties he was wrongfully, unlawfully, and maliciously discharged by it that it wrongfully, unlawfully, and maliciously blacklisted him; that he was blacklisted wrongfully, unlawfully, maliciously, and falsely by its placing upon its records a pretended cause of discharge, to wit, neglect of duty, with a view of injuring and preventing him from entering its employment or that of other railroad companies; that it had entered into a conspiracy and combination with other railroad companies by which its employés discharged for cause will not be given employment by other railroad companies; that, on account of its false and malicious acts and its conspiracy with other railroad companies, he has been deprived of the right to again engage in the employment of the defendant or other railroad companies; that the wrongful acts mentioned were committed for the purpose of making, and had made, it impossible for him to ever again get employment from the defendant on any of its lines, or from other railroad companies in the United States; and that he has been damaged thereby in the sum of $5,000.

Our attention has not been invited to, nor have we been able to find, any reported case involving exactly the same question as is involved in this case. It is a novel question in this court, although there are reported cases of other courts the doctrine of which might be applied to this case. As the population of the country increases, as the business and commercial industries multiply, as inventive genius causes the civilized peoples of the world to marvel at its discoveries and productions, as space is annihilated by the means of rapid transit for man, commerce, thought, and sound thus facilitating the conduct of the business, the pursuit of occupations and callings, and the promotion of the social and political intercourse of the world, courts are called upon to apply familiar principles to new questions; if none seem to be applicable, to enunciate a just rule, suited to the state of facts before it and for future application to similar facts. It can never be said that the novelty of a complaint is an objection to the action, if it is made to appear that an injury has been inflicted of which the law is cognizable. The familiar maxim of the law, "Ubi jus, ibi remedium," is considered valuable by all courts. It was this maxim which caused the invention of the form of action called an "action on the case." It is the part of every man's civil rights to enter into any lawful business, and to assume business relations with any person who is capable of making a contract. It is likewise a part of such rights to refuse to enter into business relations, whether such refusal be the result of reason, or of whim, caprice, prejudice, or malice. If he is wrongfully deprived of these rights, he is entitled to redress. Every person sui juris is entitled to pursue any lawful trade, occupation, or calling. It is part of his civil rights to do so. He is as much entitled to pursue his trade, occupation, or calling, and be protected in it, as is the citizen in his life, liberty, and property. Whoever wrongfully prevents him from doing so inflicts an actionable injury. For every injury suffered by reason of a violent or malicious act done to a man's occupation, profession, or way of getting a livelihood, an action lies. Such an act is an invasion of legal rights. A man's trade, occupation, or profession may be injured to such an extent, by reason of a...