Beechley v. Mulville ( 1897 )

In a petition for a re-hearing there is a very persistent contention that because of a conspiracy, the plaintiff has been deprived of a valuable business; and it is urged, that notwithstanding his connection with the organization of the compact, and his continued membership therein, he could not, by unlawful means, be deprived of property rights, and reliance is placed on the holding in Printing Co. v. Howell, 26 Or. 527 (38 Pac. Rep. 547). We readily indorse the holding in that case. It is a case in which a typographical union, an unincorporated voluntary association, with rules for the regulation of its membership (an object of the union being to establish an equitable scale of wages, and to protect its members from sudden or unreasonable fluctuations in the rate of compensation for their labor, etc.), attempted, in an unlawful manner, to compel members of the union and others to quit the employment of the plaintiff, a company engaged in lithographing, engraving, printing, and publishing journals, newspapers, etc. It appears that members of the union went upon the premises of the plaintiff and intimidated members of the union there employed, by threats to enforce the rules of the union against them, so that, against their will, they quit such employment, to the injury of the plaintiff. The record in that case shows other acts of an unlawful character to the injury of the plaintiff. It appears in that case that a conspiracy was formed by the executive committee of the union and its members to destroy the plaintiff's business, or compel it to submit to the rules of the union, of which it was not a member. The opinion, after defining or specifying some things lawful for such organization, states: "No resort can be had to compulsory methods of any kind to increase, keep up, or retain such memberships. Nor is it permissible for associations of this kind to enforce the observance of their laws, rules, and regulations through violence, threats, or intimidation, or deprive persons of perfect freedom of action." The opinion holds, that such organizations may preserve their membership by reasoning, fair arguments, and even by persuasion and entreaty. It is to be remembered that the organization was a legal one, its methods to enforce its objects only being held illegal. The illegalities consisted in attempts to injure the plaintiff's business, which was legal, and interfering in an unlawful manner with the freedom of its employes. The case at bar has none of the features of that case. In this case the plaintiff was a member of an unlawful combination or compact. For six years or more he had been such, and the agencies, the loss of which constitutes the injury complained of, came to him as a member of the compact, under a agreement to do to the business of agencies under the rules of the compact, and hence he had no lawful business. There is not a semblance of a showing of a right to the agenices, except the will of the companies, and then the only by virtue of the compact. We do not hold, that had there been a dollar of the lawful property or rights of the plaintiff taken because of his failure to observe the rules of the compact, he might not recover it. That question is not involved. It is purley an action for damages because of the loss of his business as an insurance agent, and it appears that, in a legal sense, he had none. What he did have, as we said in the opinion, he lost by his own illegal acts. He helped to put in operation the causes that deprived him of it. The petition for a re-hearing is OVERRULED.