Russell v. Croteau
| Decision Date | 03 February 1953 |
| Citation | 98 N.H. 68,94 A.2d 376 |
| Parties | RUSSELL v. CROTEAU. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Arthur Olson, Keene, for plaintiff.
William H. Watson and William H. Watson, Jr., Keene, for defendant.
The general principle of tort law that controls this case has been well stated in the Restatement, Torts, § 766 '* * * [O]ne who, without a privilege to do so, induces or otherwise purposely causes a third person not to * * * enter into or continue a business relation with another is liable to the other for the harm caused thereby.' This principle was given limited recognition in this state in some early cases involving existing contracts between master and servant, Bixby v. Dunlap, 56 N.H. 456; Campbell v. Cooper, 34 N.H. 49, but later was extended to other business relations in Moody v. Perley, 78 N.H. 17, 95 A. 1047, and to prospective employment in Huskie v. Griffin, 75 N.H. 345, 74 A. 595, 27 L.R.A.,N.S., 966. It is true that the Huskie decision discusses interference with contractual relations in terms of fraud, force, malice, illegal motive and malicious motive, but the hard core of that decision is still consistent with the general principle that the plaintiff has a legal right in his contractual relations with which the defendant cannot interfere without a privilege or justification for so doing. The quotation from Prosser, Torts, § 974 is pertinent: 'We do not need the House of Lords to tell us that a wrongful procurement of a breach of contract is wrongful or that an unlawful act or one without lawful justification is unlawful.' There was nothing to require that the defendant's motion be granted as a matter of law. Anno. 29 A.L.R. 532; Owen v. Williams, 322 Mass. 356, 77 N.E.2d 318, 9 A.L.R.2d 223.
This brings us to the question of whether the evidence justified the verdict for the plaintiff in this case. The defense in this case does not rely on privilege or justification but consists of a denial of any intent to injure the plaintiff or of any statement or deed which could have caused harm to the plaintiff. The difficult question of deciding the limit and extent of the factors that determine the privilege or justification is therefore not involved here. Restatement, Torts, § 767. We may consider the evidence in the light of the proposition that purposeful interference with contractual relations without justification is a tort. Anno. 26 A.L.R.2d 1227; Restatement, Torts, § 766 comment m; Prosser, Torts, § 104; Note, Interference with Profitable Relations, 32 B.U.L.Rev. 214. If the jury believed the evidence on behalf of the plaintiff they could find that the defendant pursued a continuous and consistent policy of interfering with plaintiff's employment which was calculated to and did bring about his dismissal. If the jury believed the defendant's evidence he was blameless in thought and deed and in no way connected with the plaintiff's dismissal from his employment. The jury was free to choose one of these two alternatives and we...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Soltani v. Smith
...792 (1981); Bricker v. Crane, 118 N.H. 249, 387 A.2d 321 (1978); Griswold v. Heat, 108 N.H. 119, 229 A.2d 183 (1967); Russell v. Croteau, 98 N.H. 68, 94 A.2d 376 (1953)). Under New Hampshire law, the elements necessary successfully to plead a cause of action for tortious interference with c......
-
Mason v. Funderburk
...or expectancy; and (4) resultant damage to the party whose relationship or expectancy has been disrupted.' See also Russell v. Croteau, 98 N.H. 68, 94 A.2d 376 (1953); Dukes v. Brotherhood of Painters, etc., 191 Tenn. 495, 235 S.W.2d 7, 26 A.L.R.2d 1223 (1950); Chipley v. Atkinson, 23 Fla. ......
-
Alexander v. FUJITSU BUSINESS COM. SYSTEMS
...interfering with the plaintiff's contract of employment," citing Griswold, 108 N.H. at 124-25, 229 A.2d at 187, Russell v. Croteau, 98 N.H. 68, 94 A.2d 376 (1953) and Huskie v. Griffin, 75 N.H. 345, 348, 74 A. 595, 596-97 (1909). Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support of Their Objection to the D......
-
Emery v. Merrimack Valley Wood Products, Inc.
...118 N.H. 249, 387 A.2d 321, 323 (N.H.1978); Griswold v. Heat, Inc., 108 N.H. 119, 229 A.2d 183, 187 (N.H.1967); Russell v. Croteau, 98 N.H. 68, 94 A.2d 376, 377 (N.H.1953). To prove a tortious interference, a plaintiff must show that (1) the plaintiff had an economic relationship with a thi......