Minnesota Stove Co. v. Cavanaugh

• Citation: 131 Minn. 458
• Decision Date: 24 December 1915
• Docket Number: Nos. 19,472-(128).,s. 19,472-(128).
• Parties: MINNESOTA STOVE COMPANY v. JOHN CAVANAUGH AND OTHERS.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL>
• Court: Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)

131 Minn. 458

MINNESOTA STOVE COMPANY v. JOHN CAVANAUGH AND OTHERS.¹

Nos. 19,472-(128).

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

December 24, 1915.

Action in the district court for Scott county to restrain defendants, their confederates and all other persons, from interfering with plaintiff's free use of its property, from entering its premises for the purpose of interfering with its business and from attempting to induce its employees to refuse to perform their duties as such, and from inducing by threats, intimidation or violence any of its employees to leave its service or to prevent by violence any person from entering its service or going upon its premises for any lawful purpose whatsoever, and from gathering or assembling near its premises or upon the approaches to its factory for the purpose of intimidating its employees, or from threatening, or by the use of abusive language intimidating, at any place within the city of Shakopee, its employees from continuing in or any person from entering into its service. Plaintiff obtained an order directing defendants to

show cause why a temporary injunction should not be granted pendente lite. The application was heard before Morrison, J., who made findings and ordered the issue of a temporary writ. From the order granting the injunction, defendants appealed. Affirmed as modified.

E. and W. N. Southworth and W. C. and W. F. Odell, for appellant.

Joseph J. Moriarty and Julius A. Coller, 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 employees 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 employees 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. Defendan...