The Washington times., 1902-05-12
Lengthy Decision in Suit
Against Three Insurance
Companies.
CLAIM OF DISCHARGED AGENT
Asked $4,000 Damages on Account of
an Agreement Between Companies Not
to Employ Agents Working for Either
Of the o hers Within Two Years.

Justice Clabaugh. presiding in Circuit
Court No. 2. recently defined the mean
ing of the word conspiracy" when used
as substitute for agreement in de-
scribing the determination of business
men not to employ certain persons. The
opinion was delivered in connection with
the suit of Mr.. John F. May against the
Life Insurance Company of Virginia, the
metropolitan Life Insurance Company of
New York, and the Prudential Company Of
America, to recover $4,000 claimed rs
damages for alleged conspiracy against
MIN to prevent him from securing and
retaining employment. The companies
were represented by Attorneys Holmes
Conrad, Leigh Robinson. and Messrs.
berry and Minor. After hearing the tes-
timony for the plaintiff Justice Clabaugh
instructed the jury to return verdict
for the defendants.
The declaration set forth that the
plaintiff had been engaged in the indus
trial life insurance business as an agent
OF the defendants at different times since
1883; that he had devoted himself so
thoroughly and exclusively to the study
and work Of the Industrial life insurance
business that he was peculiarly fitted for
such work; and that he resigned a posi-
tion OF agent with the Life Insurance
Company of Virginia about December,
1897 That in July, 1893, he applied for
employment as agent for the Prudential
insurance Company of America, but was
refused work by this company; and there
after applied to and was employed by the
e Metropolitan Life Insurance Company as
an agent, but was discharged shortly
after obtaining employment in pursuance
OF protest against his employment said
to have been entered by the Life Insur-
ance Company of Virginia.
Claim Of Mr. Nay.
The refusal OF the Prudential Insurance
Company to employ him and of the Metro
politan Life Insurance Company to con-
tinue to employ him was, Mr.. May alleged,
the result OF an unlawful, wrongful, and
malicious agreement. combination. con-
federation and conspiracy entered into
between the defendants and other indus
trial Insurance companies, unknown to the
plaintiff, wherein. among other things.
they substantially agreed TO blacklist and
boycott their ex-agents or ex-employes
for at least two years after such agents
or employees, or any of them, retired from
the employment OF any of the said de-
fendants. or OF any OF the said Industrial
insurance companies
Justice Clabaugh, in directing a verdict
TOR the defendants at the close Of the
plaintiffs case. stated among other
th;ngs that the case presented a very in
teresting question. and enc that seldom
corres before the court in this iurisdic-
ton; that IL Is question that has been
more often considered within the last ten,
fifteen, or twenty years than at any time
previously in the history OF the law
he question really at issue" the court
said. is this: Can two CT three pcrsDus
agree that they will not employ any per-
son or persons who have left the employ
ment OF either one of them until they
have been out of that employment for
two years? is tnat a matter that is pro-
hibited under the law or a violation of
any principle of law?
There can be no recovery for breach
of contract. because the evidence failed
TO show contract for employment for
any definite time. whether he was en-
ployed by the day or by the week, how
he was to be paid or whether he was to
be paid anything.