Reynolds v. Everett

• Decision Date: 18 December 1894
• Citation: 144 N.Y. 189,39 N.E. 72
• Parties: REYNOLDS et al. v. EVERETT et al.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

144 N.Y. 189

39 N.E. 72

REYNOLDS et al.

v.EVERETT et al.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Dec. 18, 1894.

Appeal from supreme court, general term, Fourth department.

Action by Frank B. Reynolds and others against James F. Everett and others for injunction. From a judgment of the general term (22 N. Y. Supp. 306) affirming a judgment of the special term dismissing the complaint, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

This action was brought to obtain equitable relief by way of a perpetual injunction against the defendants, restraining them from the commission of certain acts complained of as being illegal and injurious. The plaintiffs were engaged in the business of manufacturing cigars in the city of Binghamton, and the defendants were in part striking cigar makers, and in part persons connected with a newspaper published in the city, and charged with encouraging and abetting a ‘strike’ among the cigar makers. The complaint set forth that the employés of the plaintiffs and of the other manufacturers had discontinued working in the manufactories because of the refusal of their employers to concede a demand for increased prices for work, and had illegally combined and conspired together for the purpose of enforcing their demands. It was charged that, beyond appeals to those employés who had remained at work, and to those who either had been, or were being, engaged to work, the striking workmen actively interfered by the intimidating processes of threats and abuse, and had spread malicious reports about the plaintiffs and other manufacturers, as a part of the scheme to prevent them from conducting their besiness, and to ruin them unless they should comply with the demand for an increase in wages to workmen. There were many other allegations in the complaint, all tending to show a combination among the striking workmen, aided by the defendant journalists through the newspaper columns, for the purpose of compelling the submission of the cigar manufacturers by unlawful and violent methods. Upon the complaint and the accompanying affidavits an injunction pending the action was granted, which restrained the defendants from doing, or aiding in the doing, of any of the acts complained of, and from obstructing the plaintiffs in obtaining workmen for the purpose of carrying on their business, and from enticing away their employes. The answers of the defendants denied an unlawful conspiracy, or the doing of unlawful acts; set up a previous combination of the cigar manufacturers, having for its object to compel a reduction in the wages to be paid to workmen; and pleaded the pendency of an action at law to recover damages for the same acts which were complained of, and the adepuacy of the remedy at law. When the issues came on for trial, the ‘strike’ had long ceased; but the trial of the case was proceeded with, by...