Lohse Patent Door Co. v. Fuelle

Decision Date25 November 1908
Citation114 S.W. 997,215 Mo. 421
CourtMissouri Supreme Court
PartiesLOHSE PATENT DOOR CO. v. FUELLE et al.<SMALL><SUP>†</SUP></SMALL>

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Warwick Hough, Judge.

Action by the Lohse Patent Door Company against Reinhard Fuelle and others. From a judgment for defendants, after sustaining a demurrer to the petition, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.

This suit had its origin in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis, the object of which is to enjoin the defendants from declaring and prosecuting a boycott against the appellant and its business. Defendants demurred to the petition, which was by the court sustained. Plaintiff declined to plead further, and the court entered final judgment for defendants, and, in due time, plaintiff appealed the cause to this court.

As counsel for the respective parties do not agree upon just what the petition charges, it will be necessary to set it out hæc verba. Omitting the formal parts, it reads as follows:

The plaintiff, the Lohse Patent Door Company, a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Missouri, files this its amended petition herein by leave of court, and alleges that it is, and was at all times hereinafter mentioned, engaged in the planing mill business in the city of St. Louis, Mo., to wit, in the manufacture and sale of sashes, doors, blinds, and woodwork of all kinds for use in the erection of buildings, and also in the manufacture and sale of cabinet and kindred lines of woodwork. And plaintiff avers that during all the time that it has been so engaged in said line of business in the city of St. Louis it has enjoyed, and now enjoys, a large and profitable trade and business among builders and contractors for and upon buildings in the city of St. Louis and vicinity, exceeding in amount $50,000 yearly; that during all of that time it has been necessary for plaintiff to employ, and it has at all times so employed, and now employs, large numbers of skilled artisans in woodwork in the production of the articles and things which plaintiff manufactures and deals in, as above set forth, and it is necessary and essential to the continued and successful operation of the business of the plaintiff that it should continue to so employ such skilled labor. And plaintiff avers that, at all times hereinafter mentioned and set forth, the employés of plaintiff were satisfied with the terms of their employment, the hours of their labor, and with the compensation paid to them by plaintiff for their services; that none of the employés of plaintiff herein were, at any of the times hereinafter mentioned, complaining of the nature of their employment, nor claiming any grievances or seeking any redress of any sort or nature in connection with their said employment, nor were they desirous, so far as plaintiff is advised, of becoming associated with the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, hereinafter mentioned and referred to, or of any local lodge thereof, nor were they seeking any aid or assistance from defendants with reference to their employment.

Plaintiff further states that the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, in St. Louis, is an association and organization consisting of numerous members, the identity of whom (except as shall be hereinafter set forth) is now unknown to the plaintiff, and whose membership consists of persons engaged in industry as carpenters and joiners and woodworkmen, and is composed in part of woodworkmen engaged in the same line of occupation and employment as that which the character of the business of the plaintiff makes it necessary that it should enjoy.

Plaintiff avers that the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, in the city of St. Louis, is a trust, an illegal association and combination, and that said association and organization is against public policy and contrary to law, in this, to wit: That it is contrived and intended and designed to create, for and in behalf of the members thereof in that particular line of industry, a monopoly, and to hinder and prevent others in the same line of industry but not members of said association from obtaining employment, and to stifle and destroy competition in that particular line of employment; to fix and maintain, by agreement among the members of said association and by the use of arbitrary methods, the price to be paid persons for services in that line of industry, and to fix and regulate the amount...

To continue reading

Request your trial
90 cases
  • Shields v. Booles
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • May 5, 1931
    ... ... 633, reversed 242 ... U.S. 288, 37 S.Ct. 120, 61 L.Ed. 305; Lohse Patent Door ... Co. v. Fuelle, 215 Mo. 421, 114 S.W. 997, 22 L.R.A. (N ... ...
  • State ex inf. Ashcroft v. Kansas City Firefighters Local No. 42, WD
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • May 1, 1984
    ...facie tort concept, albeit not as an articulated remedy, was first applied as a principle of our jurisprudence. Lohse Patent Door Co. v. Fuelle, 215 Mo. 421, 114 S.W. 997 (1908); see also Bandag of Springfield, Inc. v. Bandag, Incorporated, 662 S.W.2d 546, 554 (Mo.App.1983).] The prerogativ......
  • State ex rel. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. v. Russell
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • March 14, 1949
    ...man's occupation partakes of the character of property. State v. McQuillin, 262 Mo. 256; Clarkson v. Laiblan, 178 Mo. App. 708; Door Co. v. Fuelle, 215 Mo. 421; State ex rel. Chase v. Hall, 297 Mo. 594; 30 C.J.S., 399, sec. 58; Grand International Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers v. Mill......
  • Becker v. Thompson, 31854.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • November 20, 1934
    ...170, 282 Mo. 304, 221 S.W. 95, l.c. 99 (1); State ex rel. v. Assurance Co. of America, 251 Mo. 278, 158 S.W. 640; Lohse Patent Door Co. v. Fuelle, 215 Mo. 421, 114 S.W. 997.] However, the case before us is not such a case. Respondent contends that appellant wholly failed to prove the conspi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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