Lichter v. Fulcher

Decision Date17 December 1938
Docket NumberNo. 1.,1.
Citation125 S.W.2d 501
PartiesLICHTER et ux. v. FULCHER et al.
CourtTennessee Supreme Court

Harry A. Luck, Cornelius, McKinney & Gilbert, and Carmack Cochran, all of Nashville, for appellants.

Seay, Stockell, Edwards & Barksdale, of Nashville, for appellees.

AILOR, Judge.

This is a suit by Jacob Lichter and wife, Jennie L. Lichter, partners and residents of Cincinnati, Ohio, doing business under the firm name of Southern Fireproofing Company, against Robert D. Fulcher and other officers and members of the Nashville Mason Contractors Association and the Nashville Mason Contractors Association, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Tennessee. The bill charged defendants with a conspiracy to interfere with the performance of certain contracts by complainants at Nashville, Tennessee, by means of inciting and procuring union bricklayers to refuse to work for complainants. A decree was entered in favor of complainants upon the hearing of the cause for the sum of $416.17 as compensatory damages and for the sum of $250 punitive damages. Both complainants and defendants were dissatisfied with the results of the hearing and the decree entered and prayed and perfected appeals to this court, and have assigned errors herein.

The Chancellor prepared an exhaustive finding of facts, the substance of which we state, as follows: That complainants were brick and tile contractors of Cincinnati, Ohio, and that defendants, Robert D. Fulcher, Paul Poyner, W. Bush Sneed, and W. S. Crandall are also brick and tile contractors and competitors of complainants at Nashville, Tenn. That the Nashville Mason Contractors Association holds a public welfare charter, Robert D. Fulcher being its President, R. L. Farrar its Secretary, and that W. Bush Sneed, Paul Poyner and W. S. Crandall had been representing it on a joint arbitration committee along with Carl Vester, German Vaughan, James D. Dorris from the Local Union No. 4 of Union Brick Masons of Nashville. He further found that complainants were the successful bidder on the brick and tile work for the construction of certain repairs on the Post Office and Customs House in Nashville, and also the successful bidder on the brick and tile work for the construction of the new Supreme Court Building at Nashville.

The Chancellor further found that the contract under which complainants became the successful bidder on said projects required that union bricklayers only be used, and that the only source of union labor available to brick and tile contractors was controlled by the local union at Nashville, being said local union No. 4. That the officers and committee of said Labor Union prepared and approved a working agreement between said Labor Union and the defendant, Nashville Mason Contractors Association, which agreement was signed by W. Bush Sneed, Chairman, W. S. Crandall and Paul Poyner, on behalf of the Nashville Mason Contractors Association, and by James D. Dorris, Secretary, C. N. Vester and D. G. Vaughan on behalf of said Labor Union and forwarded to the President of the International Labor Union for approval. This agreement provided that no brick mason member of Local No. 4 should work for any other firm or corporation whatsoever other than the signers of the agreement who pledged themselves to abide thereby, and with the rules of the Nashville Contractors Association. The agreement further provided that every contractor erecting masonry should file with the Secretary of the Nashville Mason Contractors Association a copy of his bid, and in event of violation of the agreement or of the rules of the Nashville Mason Contractors Association the joint arbitration Committee of the Nashville Mason Contractors Association and Local Union No. 4 was given the right to deny to brick mason members of Local Union No. 4 privilege to work on such job, and to remove the name of the offender from the list of fair contractors. As above stated this agreement was returned to the local union without the approval of the International Labor Union with the explanation that an attempt to enforce same would result in a suit against the local union.

The Chancellor further found that the features in the proposed agreement objectionable to the representative of the International Union were later eliminated and the agreement as actually executed related only to working conditions, wages and hours, etc., of the Labor Union. At the same time a code of fair trade practice for the Nashville Mason Contractors Association was adopted, providing for the filing of a copy of all bids with the Secretary of the Association not later than 4:00 P. M., the day before bids were to be awarded. But these rules did not purport to be binding on anyone not members of the Nashville Mason Contractors Association, and the discipline provided was for suspension or expulsion from membership in the association.

The Chancellor further found that complainants submitted a copy of their bid on the old Post Office and Customs House job to the defendant, R. L. Farrar, who had been acting as bid depository under the N. R. A., which had at that time been declared unconstitutional by the U. S. Supreme Court. Mr. Farrar would not accept the copy of the bid, and returned it to complainants. The Government thereafter revised its plans and other bids were required on this job, and complainants again became the successful bidder on the brick and tile work. It also became the successful bidder on the brick and tile work for the new Court Building in Nashville, Tennessee, on or about March 24th, 1936. In order to avoid any controversy with Nashville contractors, complainants sent a copy of their bid for the Supreme Court job to be delivered at 3 P. M., March 24th, 1936, to the same R. L. Farrar, then secretary of the Nashville Mason Contractors Association, but delivery of this was refused by Mr. Farrar on the claim that it came too late.

The Chancellor further found that, on or about March 27th, 1936, Robert D. Fulcher, President of the Nashville Mason Contractors Association, wrote a letter to Foster and Creighton, general contractors on both the Post Office and the Supreme Court jobs, sending a copy of same to Local Union No. 4, as follows:

"This is to notify you that Southern Fireproofing Company of Cincinnati, Ohio, violated the Bidding Rules of the Mason Contractors Association of Nashville on the U. S. Custom House building at Nashville, Tennessee." That following the sending of this letter there was a meeting of the joint arbitration committee of the Nashville Mason Contractors Association, consisting of W. B. Sneed, Chairman, Paul Poyner, and W. Scott Crandall, for the contractors, and Carl Vester, German Vaughan and James Dorris for the bricklayers, at which time representatives of the Mason Contractors Association notified the brick layer representatives that complainant company had not complied with the rules of the Nashville Mason Contractors Association in bidding on the Customs House and the Supreme Court Building. That the object of sending copy of the letter to the Labor Union was to induce members of said union to refuse to work for complainant on the two jobs in question, and that W. Bush Sneed, Paul Poyner and W. Scott Crandall, constituting the arbitration committee of the Nashville Mason Contractors Association, intended to accomplish the same purpose with regard to said contracts, when then notified the brick layer's Union No. 4 of the failure of complainants to comply with said bidding rules. That the said defendants, Robert D. Fulcher, W. Bush Sneed, Paul Poyner, W. Scott Crandall and R. L. Farrar, and the Nashville Contractors Association conspired together to intermeddle with and interfere with complainant in the performance of contracts which complainants had obtained in Nashville.

As a result of the activity of defendants as outlined herein the Local Labor Union at Nashville refused to furnish labor for the work of remodeling the Post Office and Customs House and doing the brick and tile work on the new Supreme Court Building at Nashville. Faced with this situation Foster and Creighton, General Contractors, found it necessary to take over the execution of the contract it had given complainants for doing the brick and tile work on the Post Office improvements. After much effort and the expenditure of large sums of money complainants finally convinced representatives of the Local Union that it had violated no rule of conduct for which it should be deprived of the services of Union Labor for carrying on the work on the new Supreme Court Building, and labor for this job was furnished by the local union.

The Chancellor further found that Local Union No. 4 made no objection to furnishing labor to Foster and Creighton for doing the work on the Post Office job, and that it would have furnished labor to complainants, except for the action of defendants; that defendants, Robert D. Fulcher, W. Bush Sneed, W. Scott Crandall, Paul Poyner, R. L. Farrar, and the Nashville Mason Contractors Association were informed that loss and damage would result from their course of conduct, but that they declined to recede from their position. The Chancellor, therefore, concluded that the actions of the defendants were wrongful and without justification in law;...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • Coca-Cola Co. v. Dixi-Cola Laboratories
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • May 3, 1946
    ...v. Reconstruction Oil Co., 20 Cal.App.2d 170, 66 P.2d 1215. South Penn Oil Co. v. Stone, Tenn.Ch. App., 57 S.W. 374; Lichter v. Fulcher, 22 Tenn.App. 670, 125 S.W.2d 501; Nashville Union Stockyards, Inc. v. Grissim, 13 Tenn.App. 115; Oliver v. Chapman, 15 Tex. 400; Western Cottage Piano & O......
  • Superior Const. Co. v. Elmo
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • April 29, 1954
    ...reckless allegations. No authority was cited for the allowance of such damages in equity. The second Tennessee case, Lichter v. Fulcher, 22 Tenn.App. 670, 125 S.W.2d 501, was also decided by an intermediate court. The suit was against a contractors' association charging conspiracy to interf......
  • Buddy Lee Attractions v William Morris
    • United States
    • Tennessee Court of Appeals
    • September 21, 1999
    ...statute contemplates the imposition of a severe penalty, "and should not be enforced except upon a clear showing." Lichter v. Fulcher, 22 Tenn.App. 670, 125 S.W.2d 501, 508. * * * Considering the intention of the Legislature in passing the statute relied on (T.C.A. Sec. 47_1706), we think i......
  • Cooper v. Alabama Farm Bureau Mut. Cas. Ins. Co., Inc.
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • June 6, 1980
    ...v. Johnson, 119 U.S. 608, 7 S.Ct. 339, 30 L.Ed. 504 (1887); and intentional interference with business relations, Lichter v. Fulcher, 22 Tenn.App. 670, 125 S.W.2d 501 (1938). The test in all cases is whether the alleged tortious conduct was committed by the agent within the line and scope o......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Tennessee. Practice Text
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library State Antitrust Practice and Statutes (FIFTH). Volume III
    • December 9, 2014
    ...animosity, against boarding house constituted tortious interference with business in violation of the common law); Lichter v. Fulcher, 125 S.W.2d 501, 503-06 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1938) (local contractors’ inducement of local labor union to refuse to work for an outside contractor on local jobs h......

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