The Montgomery advertiser. [volume] (Montgomery, Ala.) 1885-1982, 1909-07-25

might not be appropriass IN the pre-
yention Of torts and wrongs In other
and / confess ii appealed to me some
what at frst blush, IN view Of the ma
ture OF the grievances alleged In the
S tsas 't !, !. VIZ l.n sSnye e:
wisdom OF the courts to grappie With
such problems. the practical operation
Of the doctrine would be disastrous In
his own Views as TO what remedy was
swing like = penduiurn, hither and
In aass n made ss shSss
the teachings Of the different schools
of political economy. Confusion and
uncertainty, would reisn. where uni,
things desirable. Courts in this. as
path save to follow the policy Of the
and common law disclose 1t, and en-
force IT. as thus disclosed, regardless
Of their own notion, whatever may be
the hardi Pal,c 81 p pa os spif Lava.
What is the policy of our laws as to
competition in matters Of this sort and
what results may lawfully be effected
examination Of the common law, and
the ascertainment Of how far II has
been changed by our constitution and
statutes. What was the rule at com
As Lord Chief Justice .Coleridge OBJ
served in Mogul Steamship Co. v. Nc
Gregor. q Queens Bench Division, Law
Reports, $685. TT must be remembered,
that all trade is. and must be, in
sense selfish; trade. not being Infinite.
nay the trade Of a particular place OF
S Wsas One 0e mas es Gsp aSother yoses
the condicts Of public life, whether at
the bar. In Pariiament. in medicine ELL IN
men light on without much thought OF
others, except desire to excel or de-
feat them. Very lofty minds. like sir
will not stoop to take an advantage, IL
they think another wants 1t more. Our
age. in spite Of high authority tS Lns
contrary, is not without its SIR Philip
Sidneys, but these are counsels of per-
lection which 1t would be silly indeed
to make the measure OF the rough BUS
mess Of the world as pursued by or9i-
nary men of business. The
defendants are traders with enormous
sums Of money embarked In their ed-
ventures. and naturally and allowabiy
trade. They have a fight to push their
lawful trade by lall lawful means
They have rightito endeavor by law
full means to keep their trade IN tneir
exclude others from IT'S benefits. II they
can. Amongst lawfdl means Is GER
tainly included the inducing BY pront-
able offers customers to deal with them
rather than with their rivals. 1t fol-
lows that they may, If they think fit;
endeavor 20 Induce customers to deal
with them exclusively by giving no.
tice that only to exclusive customers
will they give the advantage Of their
profitable offers. l do not think II
matters that the withdrawal Of the ad-
vantages is out of all proportion to the
injury inflicted on those who withdraw
them, by the customers who decline to
deal exclusively with them, dealing
with other traders. 1t Is bargain
which persons in the position Of the
defendants here had right to make,
and those who are parties to the bar
gain must take 1t or leave as whole"
At common law a trader, or person
in other callings. In order to get an
other mans customers could use any
means not involving violation OF the
duress or intimidation, as the law un-
derstands and applies those terms to
transactions between man and man, or
to his becoming wrongful party to a
trader may boast untruthfully of the
merits Of his wares, SO long as 1t does
not take the form OF false statements,
amounting to Islander or wilful mis-
representation of the quality of rival
product. or libel upon the character,
business standing and. credit of his ri
val, or an effort to deceive the public
into believing that the product he sells
Is that manufactured and sold by the
rival. He may send out circulars. or
give information verbally, to custom
bound by contract for definite term,
although acting upon the expectation
and with the purpose or getting the
trade of such persons for himself. He
may use any mode of persuasion with
such customer. keeping within the
limitations of statutes which appeals to
prejudices. He may descant upon the
extent Of his rivals facilities as COM
pared with his ownt his rivals means.
dement's Der which viii result to the Gus
toner in the future from coming to the
solicitor rather than remaining where,
he is. He may lawfully. at least, so
far as his rival is concerned, cut prices
to any extent to secure his trade. So
long as what he does, is done to BEN
eft his own trade, and in taking over
in the limitations heretofore defined, he
is safe from legal restraint, at the in
stance of competitor, in following
"the law of competition" which takes
little note of the ordinary rules of good
neighborhood or abstract morality.
The person whose customers are thus
no right, of action lies in his favor
against him who solicited his custom
er, since, the solicitor exercised a legal
right in legal way; and the exercise
lawful purpose. will not give a cause
OF action. Allen v. Flood. Law Rel
ports, Appeal Cases, 1888, page j, which
on this point is not disturbed by the
later judgment of the House of Lords,
in Quinn V. Leatham, Law Reports, APP
peal Cases. 1901 page 495.
1t may be difficult for the mere casu-
list to distinguish the non -actionable
character of a mans acts when he So
licits another mans customer whom he
knows is bound by a subsisting con-
tract. expecting and intending thereby
to take over the business, where the
ordinary, natural aud intended result
of such conduct is a breach of a con-
tract and the aetionable character of
such conduct with another mans Gus
toner when the solicitor goes further
than mere solicitation, and In the
words of Lord Brampton VS.. Leatham,
supra. Is guilty of active interfer-
ence." The distinction. however. is
made a contract with another person
has a right, which the law win pro-
tect, to have that other keep 1t. Other
traders have the correlative right to
solicit the custom to which that con-
tract relates. Whatever damage re-
solicitation is privileged, so far as the
solicitor Is concerned, in the interest
of proper freedom of competition
Were the law otherwise, the first per-
son occupying the field OF public SER
vice in many localities. by procuring
long contracts to take water, light and
the like from him, might entrench him.
self in a monopoly there for years be-
cause another. thereafter, could not
solicit those who are thus bound, to
change their patronage to him, and
thereby enable a rival enterprise to
allows In the interest of competition.
In that event, the breach. in the eye Of
the law, is the act of the customer.
and not of the solicitor. when the