Q.B.D

476; 23 id. 59S; [1S92] A. C. 25; [1893] 1 Q. B. 715; Toledo Ry. Co. v. Penn. Co., 54 Fed. 730, 19 L E. A. 387; Carew v. Rutherford, 106 Mass. 1, 8 Am. Rep. 287; Sherry v. Perkins, 147 Mass. 212, 17 N. E. 307, 9 Am. St. Rep. 6S9; Lucke v. Clothing Cutters, 77 Md. 396, 26 Atl. 505, 19 L. R. A. 408, 39 Am. St. Rep. 421; Crump's Case, 84 Va. 940, 6 S. E. 620, 10 Am. St. Rep. 895; Hopkins v. Stave Co., 83 Fed. 912, 28 C. C. A. 99. The word itself is held in Casey v. Typographical Union, 45 Fed. 135, 12 L. R. A. 193, to be a threat. Intimidation and coercion are its essential elements; Gray v. Council, 91 Minn. 171, 97 N. W. 663, 63 L. R. A. 753, 103 Am. St. Rep. 477, 1 Ann. Cas. 172. On the other hand it is held that a boycott is not unlawful, unless attended by some act in itself illegal; Bonn Mfg. Co. v. Hollis, 54 Minn. 223, 55 N. W. 1119, 21 L. R. A. 337, 40 Am. St. Rep. 319; Longshore Printing & Pub. Co. v. Howell, 26 Or. 527, 38 Pac. 547, 28 L. R. A. 464, 46 Am. St. Rep. 640; that an act lawful in itself is not converted by a bad motive into an unlawful or tortious act; Allen v. Flood, [1898] A. C. 1. A product may be the subject of a boycott; Purvis v. Local No. 500, United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners, 214 Pa. 348, 63 AtL 585, 12 L. R. A. (N. S.) 642, 112 Am. St. Rep. 757, 6 Ann. Cas. 275; Purington v. Hinchliff, 219 111. 159, 76 N. E. 47, 2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 824, 109 Am. St. Rep. 322; Loewe v. Lawlor, 208 U. S. 274, 28 Sup. Ct. 301, 52 L. Ed. 488, 13 Ann. Cas. 815; and combinations for this purpose both on the part of dealers to compel one in the same business to join their association and of labor unions to force an employer to submit to their terms are usually in the United States held illegal; Purington v. Hinchliff, 219 111. 159, 76 N. E. 47, 2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 824. 109 Am. St. Rep. 322; Purvis v. Local No. 500. United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners, 214 Pa. 348, 63 Atl. 585, 12 L. R. A. (N. S.) 642, 112 Am. St. Rep. 757, 6 Ann. Cas. 275, where it was held "a man's business is his property, and to put one in actual fear of its loss or of injury to his business is often no less potent in co- E. 1011, 51 L. R. A. 339. 79 Am. St. Rep. 330. In Allen v. Flood, [1898] A. C. 1, it is said that workmen have an equal right of property in their labor, to dispose of it as they please, limited only by the equal right of the employer to do the same; that as each workman and all of them had a right to refuse to work if his demands were not acceded to, it could be in no sense coercion to put the employer to an election; and because the incidents of the situation made it to his interests to accede to the demand made so that (unless he was willing to assume the resulting loss) he had no real option in the matter, his yielding was no proof of intimidation. It was further said: "In every such case the controlling inquiry is one of means, and these can never be unlawful, if what was in fact done marks an exercise of a right, or a declaration of a purpose to do that which is not of itself unlawful." In Quinn v. Leathern, [1901] A. C. 495, Allen v. Flood is distinguished, and it is held that a conspiracy to injure, if there be damage, gives rise to civil liability; that an oppressive combination differs widely from an invasion of civil rights by a single person; that if wrongful interference with a man's liberty of action is intended to injure, and in fact damages a third person, such third person has a remedy by an action; and that annoyance and coercion by many may be actionable, where like conduct on the part of one person would not be so. This case approves Temperton v. Russel, [1S93] 1 Q. B. 715. In Loewe v. Lawlor, 20S U. S. 274, 28 Sup. Ct. 301, 52 L. Ed. 488, 13 Ann. Cas. 815, a combination to boycott a manufactured product was held to fall within the class of restraints of trade prohibited by the federal anti-trust act. In Gompers v. Stove & Range Co., 221 U. S. 437, 31 Sup. Ct. 492, 55 L. Ed. 797, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 874, it is said: "Courts differ as to what constitutes a boycott that may be enjoined. All hold that there must be a conspiracy causing irreparable damage to the business or property of the complainant. Some hold that a boycott against the complainant by a combination of persons not immediately connected with him in business may be restrained. Others hold that the secondary boycott can be enjoined where the conspiracy extends not only to injuring the complainant, but secondarily coerces or attempts to coerce his customers to refrain from dealing with him, by threats that unless they do, they themselves will be boycotted. Others hold that no boycott can be enjoined, unless there are acts of physical violence, or intimidation caused by threats of physical violence." The publication of letters, circulars and printed matter may constitute a means to a violation of the injunction; Reynolds v. Davis, 198 Mass. 300, 84 N. E. 457, 17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 162; Sherry v. Perkins, 147 Mass. 212, 17 N. E. 307, 9 Am. St. Rep. 689; Brown v. Pharmacy Co., 115 Ga. 452, 41 S. E. 553, 57 L. R. A. 547, 90 Am. St. Rep. 126; Lohse Patent Door Co. v. Fuelle, 215 Mo. 421, 114 S. W. 997, 22 L. R. A. (N. S.) 607, 128 Am. St. Rep. 492; Thomas v. R. Co., 62 Fed. 803; Continental Ins. Co. v. Board, 67 Fed. 310; Beck v. Protective Union, 118 Mich. 527, 77 N. W. 13, 42 L. R. A. 407, 74 Am. St. Rep. 421; Burr v. Trades Council, 53 N. J. Eq. 102, 30 Atl. 8S1. See, also, Ludwig v. West Tel. Co., 216 U. S. 156, 30 Sup. Ct. 2S0, 54 L. Ed. 423; Bitterman v. R. Co., 207 U. S. 200, 28 Sup. Ct. 91, 52 L. Ed. 171; Scully v. Bird, 209 U. S. 489, 28 Sup. Ct. 597, 52 L. Ed. 899. (These cases are cited in the opinion. Gompers v. Stove & Range Co., 221 U. S. 438, 31 Sup. Ct. 492, 55 L. Ed. 797, 34 L. R, A. [N. S.] 874.) One who is under no contract relation to another may without question withdraw from business relations with that other. This includes the right to cease to deal not only with the individual who may be pursuing a course deemed by him detrimental, but with all who, by their patronage, aid in the maintenance of the objectionable policies; J. F. Parkinson Co. v. Building Trades Council. 154 Cal. 581, 98 Pac. 1027, 21 L. R. A. (N. S.) 550, 16 Ann. Cas. 1165, where it was held that if the workmen violated no right of the company by refusing to work for it, they violated none by refusing to work for contractors who used material bought of it To the same effect, [1892] A. C. 25; National Protective Ass'n of Steam Fitters & Helpers v. Cumming, 170 N. Y. 315, 63 N. E. 369, 58 L. R. A. 135, 88 Am. St. Rep. 648; Clemmitt v. Watson, 14 Ind. App. 38, 42 N. E. 367; Cote v. Murphy, 159 Pa. 420, 28 Atl. 190, 23 L. R. A. 135, 39 Am. St. Rep. 6S6; Macauley v. Tierney, 19 R. I. 255, 33 Atl. 1, 37 L. R. A. 455, 61 Am. St. Rep. 770; Bohn Mfg. Co. v. Hollis, 54 Minn. 223, 55 N. W. 1119, 21 L. R. A. 337, 40 Am. St. Rep. 319; Payne v. R. Co., 13 Lea (Tenn.) 507, 49 Am. Rep. 666; Hey wood v. Tillson, 75 Me. 225, 46 Am. Rep. 373; Raycroft v. Tayntor, 68 Yt. 219, 35 Atl. 53, 33 L. R. A. 225, 54 Am. St. Rep. S82; State v. Van Pelt, 136 N. C. 633, 49 S. E. 177, 68 L. R. A. 760, 1 Ann. Cas. 495; Lindsay & Co. v. Federation of Labor, 37 Mont. 264, 96 Pac. 127, 18

Bouvier's Law Dictionary and Concise Encyclopedia

A Dictionary of Law