The Legality of Boycotts1906 - 28 pages |
Common terms and phrases
absolute right action accrues acts unlawful actuating Am.Law base a remedy boycotts was originally cause of action coercion and intimidation Cogley common law conceded considered correlative rights Court held Criminal Law customers damage dammum absque injuria Eddy effect end sought exercise of correlative exists fact Giblan ground Guethler Hawarden inflict injunction intent to injure interfered Justice Holmes justification kind of coercion labor unions law of conspiracy Law of Torts law relating Leathem LEGALITY OF BOYCOTTS Lord v.Langdon loss Massachusetts means are employed means employed merely moral intimidation N.Y. Supp N.Y.Crim necessarily number ordinary trade competition peaceable boycott person boycotted persuasion constitutes lawful picket plaintiff Pollock on Torts property right purpose of benefitting Quinn v.Leathem resort Sinsheimer Steamship Co.v.McKenna,30 Fed.48 Teamsters Tomah Bank trade boycotts treatment of boycotts United Garment Workers UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA unlawful act unlawful means v.Altman 26 v.Hennessy 176 v.Van Patten Vegelahn wages Walsh v.Assn York Courts
Popular passages
Page 4 - The men who walk up and down in front of a man's shop may be guilty of intimidation, though they never raise a finger or utter a word. Their attitude may, nevertheless, be that of menace. They may intimidate by their numbers, their pleadings, their methods, their circulars, and their devices.
Page 12 - To maintain a bill on the ground of conspiracy, it is necessary that it should appear that the object relied on as the basis of the conspiracy, or the means used in accomplishing it, were unlawful. What a person may lawfully do, a number of persons may unite with him in doing, without rendering themselves liable to the charge of conspiracy, provided the means employed be not unlawful.
Page 4 - The act of displaying banners with devices, as a means of threats and intimidation to prevent persons from entering into or continuing in the employment of the plaintiffs, was injurious to the plaintiffs, and illegal at common law and by statute.
Page 19 - One may without liability induce the customers of another to withdraw their custom from him, in the race of competition, in order that the former may himself get the custom, there being no contract; and it is no matter that such person is injured, and it is no matter that the other party was moved by express intent to injure him, motive being immaterial where the act is not unlawful.
Page 22 - The immediate object and motive was to strengthen the defendants' society as a preliminary and means to enable it to make a better fight on questions of wages or other matters of clashing interests. I differ from my brethren in thinking that the threats were as lawful for this preliminary purpose as for the final one to which strengthening the union was a means.
Page 22 - I differ from my brethren in thinking that the threats were as lawful for this preliminary purpose as for the final one to which strengthening the union was a means. I think that unity of organization is necessary to make the contest of labor effectual, and that societies of laborers lawfully may employ in their preparation the means which they might use in the final contest.
Page 3 - The essential idea of boycotting, whether in Ireland or the United States, is a confederation, generally secret, of many persons, whose intent is to injure another by preventing any and all persons from doing business with him, through fear of incurring the displeasure, persecution, and vengeance of the conspirators.
Page 9 - We have then to inquire whether mere competition, directed by one man against another, is ever unlawful. It was argued that the plaintiffs have a legal right to carry on their trade, and that to deprive them of that right by any means is a wrong. But the right of the plaintiffs to trade is not an absolute but a qualified right, a right conditioned by the like right in the defendants and all Her Majesty's subjects, and a right therefore to trade subject to competition.
Page 16 - If it be true that workingmen may combine with a view, among other things, to getting as much as they can for their labor, just as capital may combine with a view to getting the greatest possible return, it must be true that when combined they have the same liberty that combined capital has, to support their interests by argument, persuasion, and the bestowal or refusal of those advantages which they otherwise lawfully...
Page 16 - It shows without the need of further authority that the policy of allowing free competition justifies the intentional inflicting of temporal damage, including the damage of interference with a man's business, by some means, when the damage is done not for its own sake, but as an instrumentality in reaching the end of victory in the battle of trade.