Minn. Stove Co. v. Cavanaugh, 19472[128].

• Court: Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
• Citation: 155 N.W. 638,131 Minn. 458
• Docket Number: No. 19472[128].,19472[128].
• Parties: MINNESOTA STOVE CO. v. CAVANAUGH et al.
• Decision Date: 24 December 1915

131 Minn. 458

155 N.W. 638

MINNESOTA STOVE CO.

v.CAVANAUGH et al.

No. 19472[128].

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Dec. 24, 1915.

Appeal from District Court, Scott County; P. W. Morrison, Judge.

Action by the Minnesota Stove Company against John Cavanaugh and others. A temporary injunction was issued, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

Facts examined, and held sufficient to justify the issuance of a temporary injunction.

Workmen may go on a strike and may use legitimate means to induce other workmen to join them or to refrain from taking the positions vacated by them, but may not go to the extent of intimidating, coercing, or terrorizing such other employés.

The injunction is modified by striking therefrom a paragraph which might be construed as forbidding defendants from using legitimate means to induce other workmen to quit plaintiff's service. E. & W. N. Southworth, of Shakopee, and W. C. & W. F. Odell, of Chaska, for appellants.

Jos. J. Moriarty and J. A. Coller, both of Shakopee, for respondent.

TAYLOR, C.

Plaintiff is engaged in manufacturing stoves, ranges and heaters at Shakopee, and defendants were employed in its foundry as molders. In March, 1915, defendants declared a strike, quit work and ‘picketed’ the plant. Plaintiff employed other molders and trouble followed. Plaintiff, in a somewhat lengthy complaint, sets forth charges to the effect that defendants, acting in combination and jointly, are interfering with its business, and are attempting by means of threats, abuse and violence to intimidate and terrorize its employés and compel them to quit its service, and asks that defendants be enjoined from entering upon its premises for the purpose of interfering with its business, and from using threats, coercion, intimidation or violence to force its employés to leave their employment. Defendants interposed an answer in which they admit going out on a strike and picketing the plant, but deny in detail all charges as to threats, abuse, coercion, intimidation and violence. Plaintiff made an application for a temporary injunction during the pendency of the action. This application was submitted upon the complaint and answer supported by affidavits pro and con and by certain records of the municipal court. The trial court found as a fact that all the allegations contained in the complaint were true, also that the charges set forth in certain affidavits were likewise true, and issued the temporary injunction as prayed for. Defendants appealed.

[1] 1. Defendants contend that the evidence is not sufficient to sustain the findings of fact nor to justify the issuance of the injunction. The claim that defendants were acting jointly and in concert is not controverted but in effect admitted. Three of defendants entered a plea of guilty in the municipal court to a charge of using abusive language tending to provoke an assault, to and concerning certain of plaintiff's employés. Another defendant was convicted by a jury of an assault in the third...