Jensen v. Cooks' & Waiters' Union of Seattle

• Decision Date: 08 August 1905
• Citation: 81 P. 1069,39 Wash. 531
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: JENSEN v. COOKS' & WAITERS' UNION OF SEATTLE et al.

81 P. 1069

39 Wash. 531

JENSEN v. COOKS' & WAITERS' UNION OF SEATTLE et al.

Supreme Court of Washington

August 8, 1905

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Geo. C. Hatch, Judge.

Action by William Jensen against the Cooks' & Waiters' Union of Seattle, an unincorporated association, impleaded with others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant named appeals. Affirmed.

Root Palmer & Brown, for appellant.

Piles, Donworth, Howe & Farrell and Dallas V Halverstadt, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

This is a suit brought by the respondent against the Cooks' &amp Waiters' Union of Seattle and certain individual defendants to enjoin them from unlawfully interfering with and injuring the respondent's business. A general demurrer was interposed to the complaint, which the trial court overruled, whereupon the defendants refused to plead further, and judgment was entered against them according to the prayer of the complaint. The ultimate question on this appeal therefore is, does the complaint state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action? The respondent in his complaint, alleges that he is a resident and citizen of the city of Seattle, and was at that time, and for three years last past had been, the proprietor of and running that certain café in the city known as the 'Bismarck' that prior to the interference therein of the defendants the café had been doing a very large business, it affording a seating capacity for 550 people and was patronized daily by from 2,000 to 3,000 persons; that he had in his employ as floor manager for his café one Kuehl, who was a competent man for such position, and whose work therein was satisfactory to the respondent, and that said Kuehl was not a member of the appellant union; that shortly prior to November 13, 1904, certain employés of respondent, who were members of the appellant union, and the appellant union acting by its members and by the defendants Smith, Reef, and Hasketh, demanded of respondent that he discharge from his employ said Kuehl, because said Kuehl was not a member of the appellant union; that the respondent refused to comply with this demand, whereupon said persons requested the respondent to inform them whether he would allow them to endeavor to induce said Kuehl to join the appellant union, to which request the respondent replied that he had nothing to do with the actions of said Kuehl in that regard; that on November 13, 1904, said appellant union, acting by said Smith, Reef and Hasketh, and other members of said union, demanded of Kuehl that he join the appellant union, to which demand the said Kuehl refused to comply, and that thereupon the said union ordered a strike among respondent's employés, and that said employés who were members of said union, namely, his cooks and waiters, walked out just at the dinner hour of said café, and...