Walker v. Cronin (20) the plaintiff alleged in his declaration that the defendant, with intent to injure the plaintiff's business and without any justifiable cause, persuaded persons who were about to enter into the plaintiff's employment to abandon it, to the plaintiff's damage. The declaration was held sufficient, the court saying: "Every one has a right to enjoy the fruits and advantages of his own enterprise, industry, skill, and credit. He has no right to be protected against competition; but he has a right to be protected against malicious and wanton interference, disturbance, or annoyance. If disturbance or loss come as a result of competition, or the exercise of like rights by others, it is loss without legal wrong, unless some superior right by contract or otherwise is interfered with. But if it come from the merely wanton or malicious act of others, without the justification of competition, or the service of any interest or lawful purpose, it then stands upon a different footing and gives rise to a right of action." The court expressly refused to decide what would be justifiable cause other than competition, but suggested that if it were by way of friendly advice, honestly given, it would probably not be actionable.

§ 350. Who are competitors? In so far as competition may be urged as a justification for persuading or by economic pressure coercing third parties not to have dealings with a plaintiff, it is necessary to define competition. Suppose A and X are each selling soap to druggists, and A offers lower prices, or refuses to sell to any druggist

(20) 107 Mass. 555.

who will not buy of A exclusively. X is thus injured in his trade. Or suppose a labor union refuses to work for an employer unless he employs union labor exclusively, and non-union men thus lose employment. The contest between A and X and between the union and non-union men is here competition in the strict sense. Each is offering similar goods or services to a common customer, and each is trying to secure an exclusive market. In so far as competition is a justification, it is here established.

But suppose the members of a labor union leave A's employment in order to compel the payment of higher wages, and, this being ineffective, they refuse to deal with or work for A's customers unless they cease trading with A. A and the union are not competitors, strictly, because they are not offering to a common public or customer the same kind of goods or services. The union is simply trying to coerce an unwilling third party to take sides with it against A. This is what is called a boycott, and it is everywhere illegal (21). The rival parties are not engaged in competition to secure trade or employment from common third parties, but are engaged in a bargaining struggle with each other, and neither may legally secure allies by economic coercion.

§ 351. Persuasion by individual non-competitors. In Graham v. St. Charles Street Railroad Company (22) the plaintiff was a proprietor of a grocery store opposite the defendant company's stable and other buildings; the

(21) Barr v. Essex Trades Council, 53 N. J. E. 101; Quinn v. Leathem, (1901) A. C. 495.

(22) 47 La. Ann. 214, 1657.

other defendant, Newman, who was the foreman of the defendant company, and as such had the power of employing and discharging its employees, succeeded in inducing the employees, by persuasion and threats of discharge, not to deal at the plaintiff's store, to the plaintiff's damage; the defendant's motive in doing so was ill will toward the plaintiff and a deliberate desire to injure him. The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover against Newman, but not against the company, because it was not responsible for the foreman's conduct. The court said: "A careful consideration of the testimony impresses us, as we must conclude it did the jury, that the defendant did use efforts to divert employees from dealing with the plaintiff, and that his motive was not to enforce the rules or discipline of the company. The right of protection to the citizen in the pursuit of the avocation by which he gains his livelihood is as important as the security of his person and property. No man is privileged to injure another in his business. If the defendant, Newman, by his conduct and language sought to create a feeling or prejudice against the plaintiff, deterring those from buying from him inclined to do so, we think reparation is due the plaintiff.”

In the London Guarantee Association v. Horn (23) the plaintiff, Horn, while in the employ of Arnold, Schwinn and Company, as foreman of the frame department of its bicycle factory, was injured while engaged in his work. A., S. and Company carried with the defendant company an indemnity policy, indemnifying the firm against loss

(23) 206 Ill. 493.

from injury to its employees; this policy, by its terms, could be cancelled by the defendant on five days' notice. The plaintiff brought suit against A., S. and Company and recovered a judgment for $3,500. The defendant's representative offered the plaintiff $100 in settlement of his claim and told him that unless he accepted that amount he would have the plaintiff discharged by A., S. and Company, who had re-employed him. The plaintiff refused the offer, and thereupon the defendant gave notice to A., S. and Company that unless they discharged the plaintiff the defendant would cancel the indemnity policy which A., S. and Company had upon the plaintiff. A., S. and Company thereupon discharged the plaintiff. The plaintiff did not have a contract of service with A., S. and Company, but the latter would have been willing to employ him indefinitely. The majority of the court held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover, saying: "Arnold, Schwinn and Company had the undoubted right to discharge Horn whenever it desired. It could discharge him for reasons the most whimsical and malicious, or for no reason at all, and no cause of action in his favor would be thereby created; but it by no means follows that while the relations between A., S. and Company and Horn were pleasant, and while, as the evidence shows, it was the expectation of the company that Horn would continue in its employ all the year round, that the interference of the defendant, whereby it secured the employer to exercise a right which was given it by the law, but which, except for the action of the defendant, it would not have exercised, is not actionable." The dissenting judges said: "That

the defendant had a legal right to cancel the policy if its motive had not been bad is not denied, and the threat to do it did not become unlawful because of a bad motive. On that subject Mr. Justice Cooley says: 'Bad motive, by itself, then, is no tort. Malicious motives make a bad act worse, but they cannot make that a wrong which in its own essence is lawful.' . . It certainly makes no difference whether the motive is to injure the employee who is discharged, or to obtain a benefit to the one causing a discharge.'

The decisions in these cases would seem to represent the better view, but there are cases inconsistent with them. In Guethler v. Altman (24) the plaintiff was engaged in the confectionery and school supply business in the city of Huntington, and a large portion of his trade was obtained from the pupils of the city schools. One Crull, a teacher in the schools, succeeded in inducing, by means of persuasion and threats of suspension, many of the pupils from patronizing the plaintiff or visiting his place of business, whereby the plaintiff's business suffered serious damage. The court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to an action, saying: "It was not an unlawful act for Crull to advise or persuade the pupils not to visit the plaintiff's store. The fact that he acted maliciously does not change the rule. An act which is lawful in itself, cannot be made actionable because of the motive which induced it. A malicious motive will not make that wrong which in its own essence is lawful. We know of no au

(24) 26 Ind. App. 587.

Vol. II-20