Jackson v. Stanfield
| Decision Date | 01 February 1894 |
| Docket Number | 16,164 |
| Citation | Jackson v. Stanfield, 137 Ind. 592, 36 N.E. 345 (Ind. 1894) |
| Parties | Jackson et al. v. Stanfield et al |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Reported at: 137 Ind. 592 at 617.
From the St. Joseph Circuit Court.
The judgment is reversed, with instructions to restate conclusions of law, and render judgment upon the special findings.
L Hubbard and A. L. Brick, for appellants.
A Anderson and J. DuShane, for appellees.
DaileyJ. Howard, C. J., took no part in this decision.
This is an action brought by the appellants against the appellees for damages and for relief by injunction, on the ground that the defendants had entered into an unlawful combination for the purpose of injuring the appellees in their business, and that, in consequence thereof, plaintiffs had suffered actual damage, and were threatened with great loss in their business.
By request of the parties, the court below made a special finding of the facts, and stated its conclusion of the law thereon, that the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover.
There was no motion for a new trial, and the only questions presented by the record are these:
First.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to an injunction.
Second.If not entitled to an injunction, are they entitled to recover damages?
It appears from the special finding, that the complainants are husband and wife.AppellantNewton Jackson had no means, but his wife had some property of her own.For several years prior to the commencement of this suit, the husband had been engaged in the business of buying and selling lumber, dealing with his wife's means, and also on commission, acting as a broker without owning the lumber himself.The business was managed by Jackson in his own name, he occasionally affixed the word "agent" to his transactions.He employed from $ 3,000 to $ 4,000 of his wife's money, but it was not generally known that he was acting as agent for his wife.
The defendants were partners in the business of selling lumber at retail at South Bend, Ind., and for a number of years kept a lumber yard at that place.Prior to 1889, the defendants and about one hundred and fifty other retail dealers in lumber organized an association under the style name of "The Retail Lumber Dealers' Association of Indiana," and adopted a constitution and by-laws for its government.The constitution declares that the organization was formed "to protect its members against sales by wholesale dealers and manufacturers to consumers."
We have, for convenience, taken so much of the special finding as we deemed material to the questions involved:
Relations with Wholesalers.
"Section 3.Whenever, and as often as any manufacturer or wholesale dealer, or their agents, shall sell lumber, sash, doors or blinds to any person not a regular dealer, as contemplated by article 2 of the constitution of the association, any member doing business in the town to which such shipment was made, may notify the shipper, manufacturer, or wholesale dealer who made such shipment, that he has a claim against them for such shipment.If the parties can not adjust the claim, it shall be the duty of the member to notify the secretary of the facts in the case, who shall refer the case to the executive committee, whose duty it shall be to hear both sides of the question and determine the claim.If the wholesaler or manufacturer refuses to abide by the decision of the executive committee, it shall be the duty of the secretary to notify the members of this association of the name of such wholesaler or manufacturer.It shall also be the duty of the members to no longer patronize said wholesaler or manufacturer.If any member continues to deal with such dealer or manufacturer, he shall be expelled from the association.If the member refuses to abide by the decision of the executive committee, his name shall be stricken from the membership of the association.It is provided that nothing in this section shall be so construed as to entitle members to make complaint on account of lumber sold to manufacturers, and actually used in articles manufactured, nor to railroad or transportation companies, nor in case of sash, doors, or blinds to hardware merchants who keep a regular stock of such goods.* * * *
Powers of Executive Committee.
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Knight & Jillson Co. v. Miller
...are void as against public policy. Consumers' Co. v. Nunnemaker, 142 Ind. 560, 41 N. E. 1048, 51 Am. St. Rep. 193; Jackson v. Stanfield, 137 Ind. 592, 36 N. E. 345, 37 N. E. 14, 23 L. R. A. 588; Railway Co. v. Closser, 126 Ind. 348, 26 N. E. 159, 9 L. R. A. 754, 22 Am. St. Rep. 593;Goldman ......
-
State ex rel. Durner v. Huegin
...Brewing Co., 161 Pa. 473, 29 Atl. 102, 24 L. R. A. 247;People v. Sheldon, 139 N. Y. 251, 34 N. E. 785, 23 L. R. A. 221; Jackson v. Stanfield, 137 Ind. 592, 36 N. E. 345, 37 N. E. 14, 23 L. R. A. 588; People v. Nussbaum (Sup.) 66 N. Y. Supp. 129;Leonard v. Poole, 114 N. Y. 371, 21 N. E. 707,......
-
Knight & Jillson Co. v. Miller
... ... void as against public policy. Consumers' Oil ... Co. v. Nunnemaker (1895), 142 Ind. 560, 51 Am ... St. 193, 41 N.E. 1048; Jackson v. Stanfield ... (1894), 137 Ind. 592, 23 L. R. A. 588, 36 N.E. 345; ... Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Closser (1898), ... 126 Ind. 348, 9 L ... ...
-
Lohse Patent Door Company v. Fuelle
...property rights or business of another, may be enjoined where the remedy at law is inadequate. Filley v. Fassett, 44 Mo. 168; McCartney v. Garnhart, 45 Id. 593; v. Tob. Co., 104 Id. 53; Oakes v. Candy Co., 146 Id. 391; Nicholson v. Cigar Co., 158 Id. 158; Sanders v. Utt, 16 Mo.App. 322; McC......
-
Indiana
...1955). 73. IND. CODE § 24-1-2-1. 74. IND. CODE § 24-1-3-1. 75. IND. CODE § 24-1-4-1. 76. IND. CODE § 27-4-1-4. 77. Jackson v. Stanfield, 36 N.E. 345 (Ind. 1894). 78. Id. at 350-51. 79. 87 N.E. 823 (Ind. 1909). 80. 116 N.E. 425 (Ind. App. 1917). Indiana 17-9 to ship at higher rates. The Indi......
-
Indiana. Practice Text
...Ind. 2007). 74 Id. at 809. 75. IND. CODE § 24-1-2-1. 76. Id. § 24-1-3-1. 77. Id. § 24-1-4-1. 78. Id. § 27-4-1-4. 79. Jackson v. Stanfield, 36 N.E. 345 (Ind. 1894). 80. Id. at 350-51. 81. 87 N.E. 823 (Ind. 1909). 82. 116 N.E. 425 (Ind. App. 1917). Indiana 17-9[x1] of his competitors of the r......
-
Satellite digital radio searching for novel theories of action.
...Co. v. Jackson, 119 N.E. 573 (N.Y. 1918). (103.) PROSSER, LAW OF TORTS, supra note 98, at 980. (104.) Id. See also Jackson v. Stanfield, 36 N.E. 345 (Ind. 1894) (no requirement of contract enforceable under statute of frauds); Salter v. Howard, 43 Ga. 601 (1871) (formal defects in contract ......