The Connecticut labor news., 1922-09-08
MATTERS DECISION OF WIDE INTEREST
 TO ALL EMPLOYES
Recent Ruling of State Supreme Court Against Union Marks
 New Angle of Attack.

{
 i New Angle of Attack.
 The decision handed down recently
 by the State Supreme Court in the
 case of R. & w. Hat Shop, Inc,
 against the United Hatters of North k America, ct als., which was reported lin a previous edition of this paper, IS
 of such considerable importance to
 the law relating to industrial disputes
 that excerpts from the opinion of the
 chief justice are printed below. The 1 facts upon which the decision are based are in brief that in the summer of 1919 the dependent union induced | Harry McLachlan, maker of hats in the rough, to break the. contracts with the plaintiff, who was a hat fnisher,
 and fail to make deliveries to him of hats in the rough. The plaintiff was
 an open shop and the purpose of the
 union in inducing the breach of con tract was alleged and proved to be to secure sufficient hats in the rough, which at this time were very hard to
 get, for union hat fnishers in order that as many union men as possible might receive employmenet. It was not proved that defendants were at tempting directly to damage or to
 unionize the R. & w. Hat Shop al though the result of their operations did cause such damage. Then the question was squarely presented, as to whether a labor union could cause an infringement of the contract rights of third parties and set up as a justification that 1t sought to benefit itself and its members. Thomas Hewes of Hewes, Phillips & Lindsey of Hartford, and Walter Gordon Mer- of IL +a6 the R. & w. Hat Shop, and David E. of New Haven represented the union. Important Points of Law.
 The important principles establish
 ed by this decision appear in the fol-
 lowing excerpts from the opinion
 written by Chief Justice Wheeler:
 "The single remaining question be-
 fore us is stated in plaintiffs brief a.
 follows: It is unlawful to knowing
 ly induce a breach of contract either
 with intent to injure a third party or
 to secure benefit for ones self. The
 facts found show that defendants
 Green, Lawler, Sculley and O'Hara
 Intentionally procured by means of
 these instructions the breach of Mo
 Lachlan's contracts with plaintiff
 when having knowledge of their ex-
 istence for the purpose of securing
 for union finishing shops an ade l,
 quate supply of hats in the rough
 so as to secure to the members of the l affiliated unions steady employment. 1
 It thus appears that these defendants | who represented these unions knew i of these contracts when2 they pro- | cured their breach and that their pur- pose was to benefit the unions and ! their members.
 Rights Under Contract.
 The plaintiff was free to make any legal contract with McLachlan, and i he with the plaintiff, which did not wrongfully infringe upon the legal | rights of others or offend against public rights, and their liberty to so i contract was a right which our law gave and guaranteed to each. When the plaintiff and McLachlan entered into their contracts each acquired the right to have the other fulfill them according to their terms, or to obtain damages for the failure to fulfil. These were the duties which the con- tracts imposed on each, and these were the rights which they created. Such contract relation gave to each a property right in the contracts and any intentional interferences with the rights of either by a third party 1 was an interference with his rights of property and if intentionally done by one not having equal or superior rights or by one knowing of this con- tract relation, 1t was a wrongful in reference subjecting him who pro- cured the breach to an action for the damage resulting from the tort.
 Scullev and O'Hara acted with knowledge of plaintiffs contracts. Their attempted justification IS that they acted in the exercise of an equal or superior right to that of the plain tiff and that the injury to 1t was in cidental to their exercise of their un- doubted right and consequently was damnum absque injuria. Their jus tifcatoin is that they sought to bene- fit those whom they represent by se- curing for them the means for steady The purpose was leg timate and commendable, but 1t could not be carried out in disregard of the stent before this purpose was con ,eived The plaintiffs rights were | superior to those of these defendants. i T A justifc ation for injury to another / rest upon the violation of his f existing rights which he who justi- ies knew of Though the defendants | If was commendable, the means lsed to carry 1t through cannot be HI ustihed The knowingly procuring HI IcLachlan to breach his contracts HI with plaintiff were wrongful acts of IN defendants and done Intentionally by M hem, and for the resulting damage HI hey are liable. "The gist of the dc- HI ion is not the intent to injure but M 0 interfere without justification with LII laintiff's contractural rights with HI thereof" HI
 Lamb vs. Cheney & Son, 227 N. Y. HI IS; Quinn vs. Leathem, 1901, A. C. HI o5. III
 The trail court held that liability MI or procuring the breach of these M would have arisen had HI 1eir breach been the end sought. but M