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

ness could Be run Il 1 pront. thereby
bsiow cost; ana finally pnttins II Out
e While Il Y %sinr s sss so ,s
procsm Of law to recover damages for
or CUSTOMERS, who preached their con-
tfecte VITA H. and iron the persons
Who wrongfully Induced them to do SO.
Necessarily there must be considerable
eelay * law: II many suits were
Be crowded. months must eiapse before
suit tried. II complainant be sue
they would carry the cases to the an
under the most favorable circumstances
m o. rsc eiaDss before complainant could
say nothing Of the lost and expense to
complainant in It's numerour suits at
iaw Meanwhile. the opportunity to
good will 10 wronsfully put In jeop-
Can one competitor say in erect to
iibel your credit end business stand
Ing. and indemnify your customers for
breaches Of their contracts, as often as
mson n ana e s'x s ySS suit: Ss o e.
your contracts, and pay the damages,
business. intend to persist In such
perish, and leave the field for me.
n equity. what chance Tor life has
the the Meansr mas
wait the. slow aid OF the law courtf
True. It is b.. suits at law against its
customer; and those VITO procure them
weaker competitor could recover dam
ages by way Of loss OF profits against
the customer, and all actual damages
M mn ho err o r m aytra "
against the main tort feasor; but Is
that adequate compensation for the
wrong? The wronged competitor may
toners under the constant hammering
Of them accompanied By offers of In
Identification. The difference In the
K Il o sns sses INN fa ns ~
tinued unlawful assaults, as compared
with what would be its value and ex-
tent II battling only with lawful COM
able OF accurate ascertainment, and
cannot, therefore, be measured or ftly
compensated in, damages. The COM
mess and extend IL as far as 1t can.
free from Illegal assault by rival. 1t
is to the public interest that It enjoy
70 choose for itself whether it VIII walt
the slow process OF the law, and sub
init TO all the disadvantages which will
thereby be entailed upon It. or. wneth-
preservation OF It's business. 1t will
minimize the damage from the contin-
uation Of the wrongta1 ASSAULTS. py
preventing the recurrence of them in
the future. The iAddeQuacy OF the
remedy at law under such circum-
stances binds a court OF equity to In
terpose its preventive remedies to that
extent. II there were doubt, the pub
lie interest. and the duty to uphold the
constitutional policy vf reasonable
competition" should turn the scale.
do not fnd that defendants conten-
tion that complainant does not come
into court with clean hands Is sustain
ed. A number of af1davits have been |
offered that complainant repeatedly So
licited defendants customers to come |
to II. but II Is not shown that In any
Of these solicitations the complainant |
exceeded the limits OF the loose moral |
fly of the law of trade, or that they |
were accompanied by offers of indemni-
hcatton, II customers would break their |
contracts with defendant.
The court cannot grant the prayer of |
the complainant to st,p the solicitation |
of its customers within lawful limits
for that would be offensive to the poll |
icy of the law, and would be building |
up rather than destroying monopoly. |
TO enjoin such solicita ton. would be |
to enjoin free competition, reasonable
as the Law of trade and
the constitution secure Ii to every one.
The court cannot say to the defendant
that Ii cannot make lawful solicita-
lions in the future of complainants