Walsh v. The Association of Master Plumbers of St. Louis

Decision Date16 December 1902
Citation71 S.W. 455,97 Mo.App. 280
PartiesJOSEPH E. WALSH, Appellant, v. THE ASSOCIATION OF MASTER PLUMBERS OF ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI et al., Respondents
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court.--Hon. Horatio D. Wood Judge.

REVERSED.

Reversed and remanded.

Cunningham & Maurer for appellant.

(1) Our code of civil procedure provides that "Every action shall be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest." Sec. 540, R. S. 1899. And the petition herein certainly shows that the plaintiff is the real party in interest. (2) Whatever defendants counsel may have to say about plaintiff's remedy at law, it is true that he can not have an adequate remedy at law and it is also true that "the prevention of vexatious litigation and multiplicity of suits constitute a favorite ground of equity jurisdiction." 44 Mo.App. 626; 51 Mo. 100; 54 Mo. 577; 112 Mo. 610; 130 Mo. 323. (3) Because the law imposes upon the Attorney-General a duty, this does not take from the injured citizen the right to ask for redress in the courts of justice. Section 10 of our Bill of Rights states: "The courts of justice shall be open to every person and certain remedy afforded for every injury to person, property or character, and that right and justice should be administered without sale, denial or delay."

Seneca N. & S. C. Taylor and Charles Erd for respondent other than Rumsey & Sikemeier Co.

(1) The amended petition fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the respondents, or any of them. The refusal of the corporations who are before this court as respondents to deal with appellant, was not the denial of any right belonging to him. Hunt v Simonds, 19 Mo. 583; Hamilton-Brown Shoe Co. v Saxey, 131 Mo. 212; State ex rel. v. The Associated Press, 159 Mo. 410; Bohn Mfg. Co. v. Hollis, 54 Minn. 223; Ulery v. Chicago Live Stock Exchange, 54 Ill.App. 233; Cooley on Torts, 278; Tiedeman's Lims. Police Powers, sec. 92. (2) The mere fact that respondents united in such refusal would no more constitute a violation of any right of appellant, of which he could complain in a court of justice, than would the refusal of one to trade with him. Hunt v. Simonds, 19 Mo. 583; Bohn Mfg. Co. v. Hollis, 54 Minn. 223; Ulery v. Chicago Live Stock Exchange, 54 Ill.App. 233; Ins. Co. v. Board of Fire Underwriters, 67 F. 310; In re Greene, 52 F. 119; Snow v. Wheeler, 113 Mass. 179; Bowen v. Matheson, 96 Mass. 499; Ins. Co. v. State, 86 Tex. 250.

BLAND, P. J. Barclay and Goode, JJ., concur.

OPINION

BLAND, P. J.

The following is the petition, omitting caption:

"Now, this day comes the plaintiff in the above entitled cause and, by leave of court first had and obtained, files this his amended bill.

"Plaintiff states that the said Association of Master Plumbers of St. Louis, Missouri, is composed of the following named persons, who are members thereof, to-wit:"

(The names of three hundred, or more, persons and firms, carrying on the trade of master plumbers in the city of St. Louis, are then set forth.)

"That the defendant, F. A. Brandt, is the president of said association, and that J. J. McNary is the assistant secretary, and Phillip Schmidt is the secretary of said association.

"Plaintiff states that the defendants, viz., L. M. Rumsey Mfg. Co. Rumsey-Sikemeier Co., Cahil-Swift Mfg. Co., the National Plumbing Supply Co., N. O. Nelson Mfg. Co., Western Brass Mfg. Co., and Crane & Co., are corporations organized under the laws of this State, and are engaged in the manufacture and sale of goods and materials known as plumbers' supplies, with offices and places of doing business in the city of St. Louis, Missouri.

"For cause of action plaintiff states that he is, and has been for a long time, engaged in the business of plumbing in the city of St. Louis, and has complied with the state and local laws, and has been, and is, a duly licensed and registered plumber; that he has expended much money and time in learning the trade of plumbing and acquiring business and trade in St. Louis, Missouri, and that by years of devotion to his said business and trade, the plaintiff has established for himself a substantial and profitable business, which he carried on successfully for many years until about the year 1899.

"Plaintiff states that these defendants (the said members of the Association of Master Plumbers and the said dealers and manufacturers) have entered into an understanding and combination in writing, combining and conspiring together against this plaintiff, and all other plumbers in this city who are not members of said association of master plumbers, whereby it is agreed and understood by and between these said master plumbers, that these said dealers and manufacturers in and of plumbers' supplies would not and should not sell to any master plumber any plumbers' supplies unless said master plumber desiring to buy said supplies was or first became, a member of said Master Plumbers' Association, and in order to more effectually enforce said agreement and carry out and further said conspiracy, said Master Plumbers' Association and said members thereof agreed and threatened to boycott any dealer found selling to a non-member of the said Master Plumbers' Association, and thereby tried to force and compel this plaintiff to join said Master Plumbers' Association and become a party to said conspiracy and combination, which this plaintiff refused to do, and, solely for the reason that this plaintiff refused to join and become a member of said Master Plumbers' Association and become a party to said unlawful combination, conspiracy, agreement and understanding, and refused to thereby aid and assist these defendants in their unlawful undertaking to create and maintain a monopoly for the purpose of controlling the business of plumbing in St. Louis, Missouri, and to control the price of plumbers' supplies in said city; and to limit and restrict the sale of said supplies as aforesaid, these defendants have for a long time in the past refused, and now refuse, to sell or permit to be sold to this plaintiff, or any other person in the city of St. Louis, any of said plumbers' supplies; that said supply dealers and manufacturers, in furtherance of their part of said wrongful agreement and conspiracy against this plaintiff, and to more effectually carry out and accomplish the purpose of said combination, entered into an agreement and understanding among themselves and with said master plumbers, whereby it was agreed and understood that if any one of said dealers should sell or permit to be sold any of said supplies to any plumber, or other person in the city of St. Louis, Missouri, who did not belong to said Master Plumbers' Association, said dealer or manufacturer should be fined therefor the sum of $ 250.

"Plaintiff states that said conspiracy and combination, entered into and carried on, and now being carried on, was and is for the purpose of limiting competition and restricting trade and raising and controlling the prices of plumbers' supplies in the city of St. Louis.

"Plaintiff states that by reason of the aforesaid secret, wrongful and unlawful agreement, understanding, combination and conspiracy among and between these defendants, plaintiff has, for more than one year next before the filing of this suit, been denied by these defendants the right and privilege to buy said plumbers' supplies of the kind necessary and requisite with which to carry on his said business and trade of plumbing, and has been obliged to forego and abandon contracts to do plumbing where he could have earned large profits, but for the wrongful interference and restraint put upon him by these defendants.

"Plaintiff states that on divers occasions he has gone to the various supply houses owned and managed by defendants, and offered and desired to purchase plumbers' supplies; tendering the market price therefor, and that he needed said supplies and material in order to finish and do plumbing that he had contracted and agreed to do, and that defendants refused to sell to him said goods at any price, stating as their reason for so refusing to sell said supplies that he (meaning plaintiff) did not belong to said Master Plumbers' Association, and they (defendants) therefore, could not sell to him (plaintiff) any goods.

"Plaintiff states that these defendants, conspiring and working together as aforesaid, have driven and forced this plaintiff and many other reputable plumbers, almost, and in many instances entirely, out of business.

"Plaintiff states that by reason of this conspiracy and combination among those defendants, it is useless for him to make, or attempt to make and enter into contracts with his customers to do plumbing work, for the reason that he can not buy supplies and material with which to do and complete said work and contracts.

"Plaintiff states that on many occasions he has purchased from these defendants supplies, and paid for the same, and upon learning that the plaintiff (or person buying said supplies) was not a member of said association, the employees and agents of defendants have compelled plaintiff (or said purchaser) to return said supplies to defendant, and in some instances, the plaintiff, or person buying, or having bought said supplies, has been assaulted, and said supplies were forcibly taken from him by the agents and servants of the defendants engaged in selling said supplies.

"Plaintiff states that the said Master Plumbers' Association, and the said members thereof, have been for a long time, and are now, engaged with said supply dealers and manufacturers in said conspiracy, combination, understanding and agreement that said conspiracy, combination, understanding and agreement is...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT