Lohse Patent Door Company v. Fuelle

• Decision Date: 23 December 1908
• Parties: LOHSE PATENT DOOR COMPANY, Appellant, v. REINHARD FUELLE et al
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

114 S.W. 997

215 Mo. 421

LOHSE PATENT DOOR COMPANY, Appellant, v. REINHARD FUELLE et al

Supreme Court of Missouri, First Division

December 23, 1908

Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. -- Hon Warwick Hough Judge.

Reversed and remanded.

W. M Williams, Block & Sullivan, George S. Johnson and Herbert R Marlatt for appellant.

(1) The acts of respondents in combining to coerce appellants to unionize their mills and discharge their non-union employees, the same to be enforced by compelling appellants' customers to withdraw patronage from appellants, under threats of loss and damage to the business of appellants' customers, constitute an illegal conspiracy and a boycott; a court of equity will enjoin such a boycott and the means used to enforce it, without violating any constitutional right of free speech or freedom to publish. (a) A combination to injure or destroy the trade, business or occupation of another by threatening or producing injury to the trade, business or occupation of those who have business relations with him, is an indictable conspiracy at common law. Callan v. Wilson, 127 U.S. 540; State v. Donaldson, 32 N. J. L. 151; State v. Glidden, 55 Conn. 46; State v. Stewart, 59 Vt. 273; Com. v. Shelton, 11 Va. L. J. 324; Crump v. Com., 84 Va. 927; People v. Wilzig, 4 N. Y. Cr. Rep. 403. (b) A conspiracy to deprive non-union men of employment and compel their discharge is illegal. Beck v. Teamsters' Union, 118 Mich. 497; Brace v. Evans (Pa.), 3 Ry. & Corp. L. J. 561; Erdman v. Mitchell, 207 Pa. St. 79; Purvis v. United Brotherhood, 214 Pa. St. 348; State v. Donaldson, 32 N. J. L. 151; Brennan v. United Hatters, 73 N. J. L. 729; Glass Co. v. Blowers' Assn., 66 A. 953; Luecke v. Clothing Cutters, 77 Md. 396; Plant v. Woods, 179 Mass. 492; Quinn v. Leathem, A. C. (1901) 495; Giblan v. Union (1903), 2 Q. B. 600; Casey v. Typographical Union, 45 F. 135; Berry v. Donovan, 188 Mass. 353; Pickett v. Walsh, 192 Mass. 572; Tel. Co. v. Kent, 156 F. 173; Crump v. Com., 84 Va. 927; State v. Glidden, 55 Conn. 46; Curran v. Galen, 152 N.Y. 33. (c) A combination to deprive one of his right to conduct his business, except on conditions imposed by the combination, is illegal. Loewe v. Lawlor, 28 S.Ct. 303; Temperton v. Russell (1893), 1 Q. B. 715; Quinn v. Leathem, A. C. (1901), 495; Brace v. Evans, 3 Ry. & Corp. L. J. 561; Purvis v. United Brotherhood, 214 Pa. St. 348; Beck v. Teamsters' Union, 118 Mich. 497; My Maryland Lodge v. Adt, 100 Md. 238; Barnes v. Union, 83 N.E. 932; Wilson v. Hay, 83 N.E. 928; Barr v. Trades Council, 53 N.J.Eq. 101; Martin v. McFall, 65 Id. 92; Glass Co. v. Blowers' Assn., 66 A. 953; Casey v. Typographical Union, 45 F. 135; Loewe v. Federation, 139 F. 71; Seattle Brewing Co. v. Hansen, 144 F. 1011; Hopkins v. Oxley Stave Co., 83 Id. 912; Carew v. Rutherford, 106 Mass. 1; Tel. Co. v. Kent, 156 F. 173; Tel. Co. v. Federation, 156 F. 809. (d) The combination mentioned under points (b) and (c) are none the less illegal because the coercion to to be exercised is: 1. The withdrawal of members of trades unions from the service of those through the cessation of whose business intercourse with plaintiff the purpose aimed at is to be attained. Quinn v. Leathem, A. C. (1901) 495; Temperton v. Russell (1893), 1 Q. B. 715; Giblan v. Union (1903), 2 Q. B. 600; Erdman v. Mitchell, 207 Pa. St. 79; Purvis v. Brotherhood, 214 Pa. St. 348; Luecke v. Clothing Cutters, 77 Md. 396; Piano Workers v. Supply Co., 124 Ill.App. 354; Barnes v. Union, 83 N.E. 932; Brennan v. Hatters' Union, 73 N. J. L. 729; State v. Donaldson, 32 N. J. L. 151; Moores v. Union, 23 Wk. L. B. (Ohio) 48; Thomas v. Railroad, 62 F. 803; Railroad v. Railroad, 54 Id. 730; Carew v. Rutherford, 106 Mass. 1; Plant v. Woods, 179 Id. 492; Berry v. Donovan, 188 Id. 353; Pickett v. Walsh, 192 Id. 572; Const. Co. v. Cameron, 88 N. E. (Mass.) 478; March v. Bricklayers' Union, 79 Conn. 7; State v. Stewart, 59 Vt. 273; Allis Chalmers v. Union, 150 F. 155; Curran v. Galen, 152 N.Y. 33; Beattie v. Callanan, 81 N.Y.S. 415; Railroad v. Hannahan, 121 F. 564; Shine v. Fox Bros. Manufacturing Co., 156 F. 357; Burke v. Fay, 107 S.W. 408. Contra: Gray v. Trades Council, 91 Minn. 171. 2. By the withdrawal of patronage of members of the association from those whose conduct is to be controlled or from their customers. Tel. Co. v. Federation, 156 F. 809; Loewe v. Lawlor, 28 S.Ct. 303; Beck v. Teamsters' Union, 118 Mich. 497; Luecke v. Clothing Cutters, 77 Md. 396; My Maryland Lodge v. Adt, 100 Md. 238; Wilson v. Hay, 83 N.E. 928; Brown v. Pharmacy Co., 115 Ga. 429; Barr v. Trades Council, 53 N.J.Eq. 101; Glass Co. v. Bottle Blowers' Union, 66 A. 953; Casey v. Typographical Union, 45 F. 135; Jordahl v. Hayda, 82 P. 1079; Goldberg v. Union, 149 Cal. 429; Loewe v. Federation, 139 F. 71; Brewing Co. v. Hansen, 144 F. 1011; Oxley Stave Co. v. Union, 72 F. 695; Hopkins v. Oxley Stave Co., 83 F. 912; Tel. Co. v. Kent, 156 F. 173; Crump v. Com., 84 Va. 927; State v. Glidden, 55 Conn. 46; Ertz v. Produce Exchange, 79 Minn. 140; Printing Co. v. Howell, 26 Ore. 527; Jackson v. Stanfield, 137 Ind. 592; Stove Co. v. Federation, 35 Wash. L. R. 797; Boutwell v. Marr, 71 Vt. 1; Martell v. White, 185 Mass. 255; Gatzow v. Buenning, 106 Wis. 1; Delz v. Winifree, 88 Tex. 400; Olive v. Van Patton, 7 Tex. Civ. App. 630; Klinge's Pharmacy v. Sharp, 104 Md. 218. Contra: Bohn Mfg. Co. v. Hollis, 54 Minn. 233. (e) A court of equity will enjoin that species of combination and conspiracy known as a boycott. Tel. Co. v. Federation, 156 F. 809; Giblan v. Union (1903), 2 Q. B. 600; Brace v. Evans, 3 Ry. & Corp. L. J. 562; Erdman v. Mitchell, 207 Pa. St. 79; Purvis v. United Brotherhood, 214 Pa. St. 348; Beck v. Teamsters' Union, 118 Mich. 497; My Maryland Lodge v. Adt, 100 Md. 238; Piano Assn. v. Supply Co., 124 Ill.App. 354; Barnes v. Union, 83 N.E. 939; Wilson v. Hay, 83 N.E. 928; Brown v. Pharmacy Co., 115 Ga. 429; Barr v. Trades Council, 53 N.J.Eq. 101; Martin v. McFall, 65 N.J.Eq. 92; Glass Co. v. Assn., 66 A. 953; Casey v. Typographical Union, 45 F. 135; Railroad v. Railroad, 54 F. 730; Thomas v. Railroad, 62 F. 803; Jordahl v. Hayda, 82 P. 1079; Goldgerg v. Union Co., 149 Cal. 429; Loewe v. Federation, 139 F. 71; Brewing Co. v. Hansen, 144 F. 1011; Oxley Stave Co. v. Union, 72 F. 695; Hopkins v. Oxley Stave Co., 83 F. 912; Sherry v. Perkins, 147 Mass. 212; Vegelahan v. Gunter, 167 Mass. 93; Plant v. Woods, 179 Mass. 492; Pickett v. Walsh, 192 Mass. 572; Const. Co. v. Cameron, 88 N.E. 478; Tel. Co. v. Kent, 156 F. 173; Gray v. Trades Council, 91 Minn. 171; Printing Co. v. Howell, 26 Ore. 527; Allis Chalmers v. Union, 150 F. 155; Beattie v. Callanan, 81 N.Y.S. 414; Railroad v. Hannahan, 121 F. 564; Shine v. Fox Bros. Mfg. Co., 156 F. 367; Jackson v. Stanfield, 137 Ind. 592; Stove Co. v. Federation, 35 Wash. L. R. 797. Contra: Clothing Co. v. Watson, 168 Mo. 146. (f) The constitutional provision relative to the right of free speech and publication does not prevent a court of equity from enjoining a boycott. The adjudicated cases are to the contrary. Cases supra, under point (e). This provision of the Constitution was adopted for an altogether different purpose. Cooley Const. Lim. (7 Ed.), 604; 2 Kent's Com. (14 Ed.), 18. The Missouri cases hold that speech or publication, designed to injure the 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; Liggett 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; McCann v. Anthony, 21 Id. 83; Brewing Co. v. Brewing Co., 47 Id. 14; Gaines v. Grocer Co., 107 Id. 507; Shelly v. Sperry, 121 Id. 438; Flint v. Smoke Burner Co., 110 Mo. 493; Shoe Co. v. Saxey, 130 Id. 212. (2) The conspiracy between respondents to compel appellants to give up control of their business and discharge their non-union employees -- the combination and concert of action between respondents to effect this illegal purpose -- was itself an illegal act independent of the illegal means to accomplish the purpose, and that conspiracy itself will be enjoined by a court of equity. Loewe v. Lawlor, 28 S.Ct. 301; Hopkins v. Stave Co., 83 F. 912; Thomas v. Railroad, 62 F. 803; Purvis v. Brotherhood, 214 Pa. St. 348; Pickett v. Walsh, 192 Mass. 572; Loewe v. Federation, 139 F. 71; Casey v. Union, 45 F. 135; Arthur v. Oakes, 63 F. 310; Allis Chalmers v. Union, 150 F. 155; Quinn v. Leathem, A. C. (1901) 495; Railroad v. Railroad, 54 F. 730; Erdman v. Mitchell, 207 Pa. St. 79; Shine v. Mfg. Co., 156 F. 357; Beck v. Teamsters' Union, 118 Mich. 497; My Maryland Lodge v. Adt, 100 Md. 238; State v. Glidden, 55 Conn. 46; Giblan v. Union, 2 K. B. (1903) 618; Berry v. Donovan, 188 Mass. 353; State v. Stewart, 59 Vt. 273; Brewing Co. v. Hansen, 144 F. 1011; Vegelhan v. Guntner, 167 Mass. 92; Stove Co. v. Federation, 35 Wash. L. R. 797; Brown v. Pharmacy Co., 115 Ga. 429.

Jno. B. Dempsey for respondents.

(1) There is no monopoly or combination in restraint of trade in the allegations of the petitions. The rendition of personal services is not contemplated as one of the things sought to be controlled by the statute. R. S. 1899, sec. 8978; State ex rel. v. Associated Press, 159 Mo. 456. And if there is such a combination as the law prohibits plaintiff is not the proper party to set the machinery of the law in motion. People v. Tobacco Mfg. Co., 42 How. Pr. 162; Hunt v. Chicago, 20 Ill.App. 282; Atty.-Gen. v. Detroit, 26 Mich. 263. And authority to file information in equity to restrain and prevent a public wrong is well established in England. It may be done by the Attorney-General, ex officio, or upon the relation of persons who have an interest in the...