Lindsay & Co. v. Montana Federation of Labor
| Citation | 96 P. 127,37 Mont. 264 |
| Parties | LINDSAY & CO., Limited, v. MONTANA FEDERATION OF LABOR et al. |
| Decision Date | 01 June 1908 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Montana |
Appeal from District Court, Yellowstone County; Sydney Fox, Judge.
Action by Lindsay & Co., Limited, against the Montana Federation of Labor and others. From an order denying a motion to dissolve an injunction, defendants appeal. Reversed and remanded.
Harry A. Groves and Walsh & Nolan, for appellants.
O. F Goddard, for respondent.
This action was commenced by Lindsay & Co., Limited, a domestic corporation, having its principal office or place of business at Helena, with branch offices and places of business at Billings and Great Falls, in this state, and engaged in conducting the business of wholesale fruit and produce merchants at those places, against the Montana Federation of Labor, the Yellowstone Trades and Labor Assembly, Billings Clerks' Protective Union, certain officers of these associations, and others to secure an injunction restraining the defendants from certain acts alleged to have been committed by them and threatened to be continued. Upon the verified complaint a temporary injunction was issued. The defendants above named appeared by answer, which denies the allegations of the complaint material to this controversy and upon such answer and oral testimony to be offered moved the court to dissolve the injunction. After a hearing the injunction was dissolved as to defendants Joy and Doody, and modified by striking out a portion of one sentence, and, with the modifications thus made, the motion was denied, and the injunction continued in force against the remaining answering defendants. As modified, the injunction is as follows "You are hereby restrained and enjoined, until the further order of this court, or the judge thereof, from in any manner, directly or indirectly, interfering with or obstructing the business of plaintiff in the city of Billings and the town of Bear Creek, or in any manner interfering with any of the patrons of the plaintiff from trading or dealing with the plaintiff, or by threats, abuse, intimidation, or other means calculated or intended to interfere with the said business of the plaintiff; from declaring the plaintiff unfair, or from boycotting the plaintiff or from printing, publishing, circulating, posting, or distributing any circulars, posters, handbills, or other written or printed matter containing opprobrious or injurious epithets against said plaintiff or its business; from interfering with, intimidating, boycotting, molesting, or threatening in any manner the patrons or customers of the plaintiff, or any other person or persons, with the purpose of inducing them not to deal with or do business with the plaintiff, and from giving any directions or orders to committees, associations, unions, or any of their officers or members, or otherwise for the performance of any act in this complaint mentioned, or in any manner obstructing or interfering with the regular operations and the conduct of the business of the plaintiff and from in any way or manner threatening, intimidating or interfering with the plaintiff or any of its officers, agents, or employés in the conduct of the plaintiff's business, or in the discharge of the duties of any such officers, agents, or employés." From the order refusing to dissolve the injunction, this appeal was taken.
For the purpose of this decision the allegations of the complaint need not be referred to at length. We are not called upon to determine the propriety of issuing the injunction in the first instance. The question for our decision is: Should the injunction have been continued in force after the hearing on the motion to dissolve was had? And the answer to this must depend upon the facts disclosed at such hearing. Stripped of all useless verbiage, these facts appeared: That some time prior to October, 1907, Lindsay & Co. had been declared unfair by the Miners' Union and Trades Assembly in Helena, and this action had been indorsed by the Montana Federation of Labor, and circulars announcing the fact had been sent to labor organizations throughout the state. On October 25, 1907, the Yellowstone Trades and Labor Assembly, upon information received of the action taken in Helena, passed a resolution which declared Lindsay & Co. unfair, and referred the matter to the grievance committee of that organization to advise the public of the action taken. Acting upon the authority thus given, the grievance committee caused to be published and circulated among the business houses and elsewhere in Billings circulars, of which the following is a copy:
That immediately after the adoption of the resolution and the publication of this circular a large number of retail dealers in Billings, who had theretofore purchased goods from the plaintiff company, ceased to do business with the concern, with the result that the business of the company at Billings was practically paralized, and great financial loss resulted. As stated by the witness Vaughan for plaintiff: Another witness for the plaintiff testified that at a meeting of the Clerks' Union in Billings early in November, 1907, the defendant Fairgrieve made the statement that "they had Lindsay & Co. on the unfair list, and they had him where they wanted him, and he believed it was a good thing to leave him there." Fairgrieve testified that he did not remember making any such statement. However, this is immaterial to a consideration of the matter before us. From these facts we are to determine the question: Should the injunction have been dissolved? It is to be observed that only two acts of any consequence are shown to have been committed by the defendants: (1) They declared Lindsay & Co. unfair, or, in the language of respondent, boycotted the company; and (2) they published the circular set forth above, that is, they caused it to be printed and circulated. The injunction, as modified, is very sweeping in its terms, and in that form could not be justified by any possible state of facts; but assuming that it was continued for the purpose of preventing the continuance in force of the boycott, and for the purpose of preventing a repetition of the publication of the circular or a similar one, although there is not any evidence of any threat or purpose on the part of the defendants or any of them to repeat that act, we may consider the question presented to us by reference to these two principal acts mentioned.
1. Does the continuance in force of the resolution of October 25, 1907, amount to such an invasion of plaintiff's rights as will warrant the interposition of a court of equity by injunction? To determine this question requires a brief reference to the policy pursued by courts and legislative bodies towards labor organization, and the conflicts which have arisen between such organizations and the employers of labor. If we accept the report in Rex v. Journeymen Tailors, 8 Mod. 11, as correct, it was held in that case that the preconcerted refusal of certain workingmen to continue their employment, even though their object was to secure an advance in wages, constituted a criminal conspiracy, which was an indictable offense at common law, although the same act done by only one individual would not have been unlawful. But by St. 38 & 39, Vic. c. 86, the right of laboring men to organize for their mutual protection and benefit is directly recognized in Great Britain. Whatever may have been the attitude of the courts and legislative bodies in this country towards labor organizations in the past, it is sufficient for our purpose to know that the right of workingmen to organize for the improvement of their industrial condition is now generally admitted. The great diversity of opinions among the courts has arisen over a consideration of the question: What means may trade unions employ to further the objects of their organizations? It
is well known that the means frequently employed are the strike and the boycott, and, as an incident of each, picketing, the use of placards and banners, and the publication of circulars.
It is insisted by the respondent company that the defendants organized a boycott of plaintiff's business by agreeing among themselves and with other members of organized labor to withhold their patronage from the plaintiff company, and that they undertook by coercion to compel the retail dealers of Billings and others to...
To continue reading
Request your trial