can be had for loss of employment due to a letter to an employer, where the letter was connected with the business of the writer and was written for the purpose of protecting that business.11. It seems to be generally agreed that any interference with the right to labor which is the result of competition is justifiable, although injury or damage may result from such interference, since to protect against competition might result in creating a monopoly.12 Whether on the ground of competition or otherwise a labor union is justified in procuring the discharge of a nonunion workman as by striking or threatening a strike, or boycott, is treated elsewhere.13 One who, having notified an employer of an assignment of an employee's wages under a mistake in identity, persists in claiming the assignment after being notified of the mistake, which results in the discharge of the employee, is liable for the wages lost by him because of such discharge.14 Whether in view of all the circumstances an interference with a man's employment is or is not for a justifiable cause has been said to be a question for the jury.15 50. "Blacklisting" Employees.-The meaning and scope of the term "blacklist," as used in regard to employers and employees, have not yet, on account of its comparatively recent adoption, been conclusively determined. In its broadest sense, however, the expression may be said to denote a document by means of which A, either voluntarily, or, as is most frequently the case, in pursuance of a previous arrangement, communicates to B certain information about C, which is likely to prevent B from entering into business relations with C.16 This description is comprehensive enough to cover the posting of workmen by labor organizations, but this aspect of "blacklisting" is more appropriately treated elsewhere.17 Generally speaking, the term refers to the practice of employers to combine for the purpose of exchanging lists of their discharged employees and mutually agreeing to refuse employment to all such persons. 18 Sometimes, however, only the names of men who have left on a strike, or are mem 11. Note: 48 L.R.A. (N.S.) 895. 12. Chambers v. Probst, 145 Ky. 381, 140 S. W. 572, 36 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1207. Note: 48 L.R.A. (N.S.) 894. 13. See LABOR. 14. Lopes v. Connolly, 210 Mass. 487, 97 Ñ. E. 80, 38 L.R.A. (N.S.) 986 and note. served that conceding the word "black- Note: 4 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1118. 15. Berry v. Donovan, 188 Mass. 353, 74 N. E. 603, 108 A. S. R. 499, 3 Ann. Cas. 738, 5 L.R.A.(N.S.) 899. 16. See State v. Justus, 85 Minn. 279, 88 N. W. 759, 89 A. S. R. 550, Cas. 474. 56 L.R.A. 757, wherein the court ob 18. Notes: 63 L.R.A. 289; 1 Ann. 1 bers of a certain labor union, are exchanged; and in other cases there is, perhaps, no actual agreement to refuse employment, but the combination is merely for the exchange of information; while in still other cases there is no combination of various corporations, but the lists are distributed to all of the many employing agents of a great railway or other corporation, and, when its lines or business enterprises extend over a large tract of the country under various divisions and names, the result is practically the same to the employee as though a combination of various corporations existed.19 In about the same degree that the term has been found difficult to define have the courts given varying treatment to complaints by employees of injuries suffered from the practice of "blacklisting" in the few cases that have come before them. The difficulty seems to arise in the attempt to determine and draw the line where the employer's rights end and the employee's begin. Thus, courts of equity have held, without expressing any opinion as to the existence of a right of action at law, that they will not enjoin blacklisting.20 On the other hand, it has been ruled that a railroad company which combines with other railroad companies to prevent a discharged employee from obtaining employment by blacklisting him is liable in damages.1 Also, the effect of several decisions seems to be that, even if a statement inserted in a certain "blacklist" was not libelous, and that the agreement in pursuance of which it was circulated was not an unlawful conspiracy, a servant who has suffered injury from its publication is entitled to recover damages in a special action on the case, if it was false, and its falsehood was known, either actually or constructively, to the employer who procured its insertion. The presence or absence of malice has, by some decisions, been made the determining factor in these cases, and it has been held that in the absence of malice in the distribution of the blacklist no action will lie. In fact it has been said that a railroad company having reason to believe that a discharged employee seeking an important position in the railway service is incompetent is under an obligation to communicate its 19. Note: 63 L.R.A. 289. 20. Worthington v. Waring, 157 Mass. 421, 32 N. E. 744, 34 A. S. R. 294, 20 L.R.A. 342. Notes: 63 L.R.A. 290; 4 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1121. 1. Note: 1 Ann. Cas. 474. 2. Hundley v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 105 Ky. 162, 48 S. W. 429, 88 A. S. R. 298, 63 L.R.A. 289 and note. Note: 4 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1120. Co., supra, it was held, however, that the declaration was defective, as not containing any averment that the servant had sought, and had been refused, employment in consequence of the wrongful act, the reason assigned being that an agreement of this character is not legally injurious to the servant unless it has actually been carried out to his damage. 3. Notes: 88 A. S. R. 302; 4 L.R.A. In Hundley v. Louisville, etc., R. (N.S.) 1119; 1 Ann. Cas. 474. knowledge or belief to those likely to employ him. Where, however, the element of malice is present an action lies. In some jurisdictions statutes exist prohibiting blacklisting and making all such acts criminal.6 5 51. Pleading. In actions for interference with employment too great generality in the averments of the complaint should be avoided; otherwise the complaint will be held to be defective. Thus, an averment in an action by one against his former employer that he prevented plaintiff from obtaining employment and caused him to be discharged from positions secured states no cause of action, as it is too general in character, nor does a complaint show such a malicious. interference with plaintiff's business as to state a cause of action at common law which avers that, in response to inquiries by an intended employer, a former employer made statements which, for all that appears from the complaint, were true; although it is also shown that the plaintiff did not secure the position. If in an action for maliciously inducing another to discharge his employee, the defendant is alleged to have induced such discharge by false statements, the substance thereof should be set forth in the complaint. Where, however, one count of a complaint is demurrable because it fails to set out the substance of the false statements by which a discharge is alleged to have been procured, an opportunity to amend the complaint should be given.8 52. Damages. In an action for procuring the discharge of a plaintiff by threatening and intimidating his employer, the former's damages are not restricted to the amount of wages lost by him prior to the commencement of the action, but the jury may award punitive damages, or may find, if so alleged, that the plaintiff was otherwise injured in his business than by loss of employment. So it has been held that one who wrongfully secures another's discharge from his employment in a business where opportunities of obtaining remunerative work are limited is liable not only for the full value of the latter's contract of service, although it was merely at will, but also for any loss of time attributable to the wrongful acts, as well as for mental distress because of the predicament in which he found himself.10 4. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Richmond, 73 Tex. 568, 11 S. W. 555, 15 A. S. R. 794, 4 L.R.A. 480. Ind. 102, 69 N. E. 1003, 4 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1091. 8. Moran v. Dunphy, 177 Mass. 485, 5. Notes: 63 L.R.A. 293; 1 Ann. 59 N. E. 125, 83 A. S. R. 289, 52 L.R.A. 115. Cas. 474. 6. State v. Justus, 85 Minn. 279, 88 N. W. 759, 89 A. S. R. 550, 56 L.R.A. 757. Notes: 63 L.R.A. 294, 295; 4 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1123. 7. Wabash R. Co. v. Young, 162 65 Atl. 129, 118 A. S. R. 152, 8 Ann. 9. Wyeman v. Deady, 79 Conn. 414, Cas. 375; Lopes v. Connolly, 210 Mass. 487, 97 N. E. 80, 38 L.R.A. (N.S.) 986. See also DAMAGES, vol. 8, p. 579. 10. Lopez v. Connolly, 210 Mass. 487, 97 N. E. 80, 38 L.R.A. (N.S.) 986. INTERNAL REVENUE See REVENUE. INTERNATIONAL LAW I. DEFINITION, ORIGIN AND FORCE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW II. NATURE AND EXISTENCE OF SOVEREIGNTY III. NATIONAL PROPRIETARY RIGHTS IV. NATIONAL JURISDICTION V. JURISDICTION OF PERSONS VI. NATIONALITY AND ALIENAGE VII. TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS VIII. DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR AGENTS IX. WAR IN GENERAL X. NAVAL WARFARE XI. NEUTRALITY I. Definition, Origin and Force of International Law 1. What is International Law 2. Sources: Treaties, Decisions, Usage, Reason 3. Classical Writers; Grotius, Bynkershoek, Vattel 4. Obligatory Force of International Law 5. Force Attaching to Municipal Laws; Comity 6. Duty of Courts to Administer Law of Nations II. Nature and Existence of Sovereignty 7. Definition of State or Nation 8. American Indians as Constituting Nations 9. Nationality of United States and Control of Foreign Relations 10. Department of Federal Government Clothed with Sovereign Power 11. Rights, Powers and Duties of Sovereignty 12. Change of Government as Affecting Liabilities 13. Internal Disorders; Civil War; Revolution 14. Recognition of Insurgents 15. De Facto Governments 16. Extinction of Nations 17. Generally III. National Proprietary Rights 18. Power of United States to Acquire Territory 19. Acquisition of Territory by Conquest 20. Discovery and Effective Occupation 21. Prescription as Means of Acquisition 22. Effect of Transfer of Territory 23. Status of Laws Subsisting at Time of Transfer 24. Private Rights as Affected by Transfer 25. Wrongs Committed by Grantor Nation 26. Boundaries between Nations 27. Water Boundaries: Rivers, Bays, Straits 28. Alluvion, Accretion, Avulsion IV. National Jurisdiction. GENERALLY 29. Scope of Sovereign Power 33. Criminal Offenses 34. Intercourse with Foreign Nations TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION 35. Generally 36. High Seas 37. Littoral Sea 38. Bays, Gulfs and Straits 39. Lakes and Rivers 40. Fishery Rights 41. Air Superjacent to Land V. Jurisdiction of Persons 42. Generally; Nationals Resident Abroad 43. Aliens Resident Here 44. Criminal Jurisdiction 45. Pursuit and Surrender of Fugitives 46. Surrender by One of States of Union 47. Acts Committed by Aliens Outside Territory 48. Vessels on High Seas; Piracy 49. Merchant Vessels in Port 50. Sovereigns and Their Representatives 51. Armed Vessels and Forces of Other Nations |