Lucke v. Clothing Cutters' & Trimmers' Assembly, No. 7,507 K. of L., of Baltimore

• Decision Date: 16 March 1893
• Parties: LUCKE v. CLOTHING CUTTERS' & TRIMMERS' ASSEMBLY NO. 7,507, K. OF L., OF BALTIMORE.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

26 A. 505

77 Md. 396

LUCKE v. CLOTHING CUTTERS' & TRIMMERS' ASSEMBLY NO. 7,507, K. OF L., OF BALTIMORE.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

March 16, 1893

Appeal from superior court of Baltimore city.

Action by George W. Lucke against the Clothing Cutters' & Trimmers' Assembly No. 7,507, K. of L., of Baltimore city, for procuring plaintiff's former employer to break his contract with plaintiff, and to discharge him from employment. The court directed a verdict in defendant's favor, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed, with direction to grant a new trial.

Argued before ALVEY, C.J., and ROBINSON, BRYAN, FOWLER, McSHERRY ROBERTS, and PAGE, JJ.

W. L Marbury, H. J. Bowdoin, and W. L. Hodge, for appellant.

Wm Pinkney Whyte, for appellees.

ROBERTS J.

This is an action brought by the appellant to recover damages for the wrongful and malicious interference of the appellee, by which he was discharged from his employment in the New York Clothing House, and prevented the free exercise of his trade and occupation, and thereby deprived of his means of livelihood. It appears from the testimony produced on the part of the appellant in the court below that the trade of the appellant was that of a "customs cutter;" that is, one who took the measure of customers desiring to have clothing made to order, cut the material according to measurement, and fitted the same on the customer. This had been his trade for 20 years, and he was a thoroughly skilled man in his trade, and had since the year 1860 been a citizen of Baltimore city. In August, 1891, he was employed by Rosenfeld Bros. (trading as the New York Clothing House) as a customs cutter, at a salary of $30 a week. At the time of his employment he was assured by Rosenfeld Bros. that, in the event of his work proving satisfactory to them, they would give him permanent employment. Subsequently his employers informed him that they were entirely satisfied with him, and that they would retain him in their service as long as he might choose to remain. Shortly thereafter Israel Rosenfeld, one of the members of the firm of Rosenfeld Bros., called his attention to the fact that certain members of the appellee corporation were complaining of his employment on the ground that he was a nonunion man; that is, he was not a member of the appellee, which is a labor union, and a branch of the general organization known as the K. of L., or Knights of Labor. Thereupon the appellant expressed his willingness to become a member of the appellee, and requested a witness, named Franz, who testified at the trial below, and who was a member of the appellee in good standing, to present his application, as, the appellee being a secret organization, he could not obtain access to its meetings for the purpose of presenting the application in person. The appellant had been informed by several members of the appellee that the manner in which he had made his application was the only way in which it could be done. Franz subsequently informed the appellant that he had made application to the appellee for his admission, but the appellee could not act on it that night, which was in the early part of December, 1891, owing to the fact that they had too many union men out of employment, but that they would act on it in February. That in February, about a week before the appellant was discharged, a committee of certain members of the appellee called at the New York Clothing House to inquire about the matter of the appellant's employment while he was a nonunion man. One of the committee was Michael, the master workman of the appellee, whose position in the organization was equal to that of president. The committee spoke to the appellant concerning his not being a member of the appellee, when he stated then that he had made application for membership through one of their members, and expressed his willingness to join their organization. They then informed him that everything would be satisfactory, and said that they would see that everything would be properly attended to, and went away, leaving the appellant under that impression. The appellant heard nothing further until the following Saturday, when one of the firm of Rosenfeld Bros. exhibited to him a notice which the firm had received from the appellee, as follows: "Clothing Cutters' and Trimmers' L. A. 7,507, K. of L. Baltimore, Feby. 16th, 1892. Messrs. Rosenfeld Bros.--Gentlemen; Clothing Cutters' and Trimmers' L. A. 7,507, K. of L., do herewith desire to inform you that in case the nonunion man whom you have in your employ is any longer retained we will be compelled to notify all labor organizations of the city that your house is a nonunion one. Trusting you may give this matter due consideration, we are, respectfully, yours, Clothing Cutters' & Trimmers' L. A. 7,507, K. of L. Jno. G. Nagengast, Secretary." That upon receiving said notice the said firm immediately notified the appellant that he would have to go, and did in fact discharge him from their employ, at the same time notifying the appellee of their action by sending them the following letter: "Office of New York Clothing House, 102 and 104 East Baltimore Street, Opposite Light Street. Baltimore, February 18th, 1892. John G. Nagengast, Esq., No. 31 S. Washington, City--Dear Sir: Your letter received, and your request will be granted. The gentleman referred to will be discharged Saturday night. Yours, respectfully, Rosenfeld Bros., J. W. Frey, Cutters and Trimmers." The appellant further proved that at the time of his discharge his employers were entirely satisfied with his work, and anxious to retain his services. That at the suggestion of his employers he went to see Mr. Michael, the master workman, and asked him why he had been treated in the way he had. Michael responded that he knew it was a wrong being done him, but that the appellee had passed a resolution not to accept any more members, and that was the only ground of their action, and they did so because there were so many union men out of employment. That he, Michael, had made an effort to procure a repeal of the resolution, but had been unable to do it. Michael informed the appellant that there was no objection to his becoming a member of the appellee. The appellant further proved that he was never informed by any one that it was necessary for him to appear before an examining board, or to take any further steps, or to do anything further than he had done, in order that he might become a member of the appellee. Appellant was a married man, and after his discharge he made every effort he could to obtain employment, but after the action taken by the appellee it was impossible for him to obtain employment from any of the clothing houses, and at the time of his discharge he was unable to obtain employment from the merchant tailors, owing to its being their dull season, and he did not until the following April obtain employment, which was from a merchant tailor, at five dollars a week less than he received from Rosenfeld Bros. That he had been employed by Rosenfeld Bros. by the week, but after he had been there a while he was told that his employment was permanent, but that they had the right to discharge him at the end of any week. It was in proof by one of the Rosenfeld brothers that "the appellant was a first-class customs cutter;" that he "filled the bill exactly," and that their firm were entirely satisfied with him, and would not have discharged him but for the objection of the appellee; that they discharged him on account of the letter received from appellee, dated February 16th, and by letter dated February 18th they notified the appellee of the receipt of its letter, and stated that its request would be granted, and "the gentleman referred to will be discharged Saturday night," to which there was no reply by the appellee. Witness further proved that, in his opinion, as a consequence of the failure of his firm to discharge the appellant, their patronage would have fallen off to the extent of organized labor, and that all the union cutters would have been ordered out, and that it would have gone still further than that; that not only the people who cut the material, but those that sewed on the work, would have been stopped from cutting or sewing for them; and "if the union men in our employ at the time the appellant was discharged had been called out, and left, the effect would have been to cause us great loss, as we had on hand at that time a number of contracts."

The appellee then offered evidence tending to prove that the by-laws of the organization required application for membership to be made in a certain manner, with which the appellant had not complied; that the local law of the appellee and the general law of the order of the Knights of Labor prohibited the calling out of their members because of the employment of nonunion men. It was also testified on the part of the appellee that no one had used fraud or intimidation in regard to calling out members in talking to Mr. Rosenfeld if he did not make the New York Clothing House a union house. The appellee has a membership of 500. In the month of January, 1891, the firm of Rosenfeld Bros. had promised the appellee that they would employ none but union men, provided the appellee would include the New York Clothing House among the names of those houses which the appellee was publishing monthly in the Critic, a paper devoted to the interest of labor organizations. The publication of said names was as follows: "The Critic. Saturday, February 14th, 1891. Issued Monthly. February 1891. To Organized Labor: All members of labor organizations are most respectfully urged to buy or have their clothes made by the clothiers named in this advertisement, and to use their influence among their friends to follow their...