« AnteriorContinuar »
-"how, then, can it be said that a chattel is general rule to be, that any one who has a converted into realty when it was neither.the temporary interest in land, and makes addiintention of the owner of the chattel nor that tions to it, or improvements upon it, for the of the owner of the freehold to annex it? If purpose of the better use or enjoyment of it, it be considered as annexed it must be purely while such temporary interest continues, on account of its physical attachment or be may, at any time before his right of enjoy. cause the mortgagee had acquired a lien upon ment expires, rightfully remove the addiit. The latter was not the fact, and the tions and improvements. I think this may former we shall show is not the criterion of now be stated to be the general rule with rethe law.” In this opinion the term “an spect to fixtures which a tenant attached to nexed” seems to be used in the same sense the freehold. There may be exceptions to as in the maxim of the common law. But, the general rule I have stated. But I think generally, the term is used in the authorities they will be found limited to the cases where as signifying that the chattel has been, in the removal of the additions or improvements some degree, placed in contact with the made by the tenant, would operate to the realty, but does not signify that it is a part of prejudice of the inheritance, by leaving it in the realty. If the writer's contention be in a worse condition than when the tenant sound, as to the real meaning of this maxim, took possession.” then it is clear that there can be ro excep Another error, very generally entertained, tions to the maxim, and the very serious error is, that the right of the tenant to remove of attempting to establish nearly the whole law things, which he has annexed to the freeof fixtures upon supposed exceptions to a hold during the continuance of his term maxim or rule of law which has no excep must, in all cases, be exercised during the tions is apparent.
term and not after the expiration thereA very common error arises out of this of. 16 But this rule has not an universal maxim or rather is an instance of it. It is application; it cannot apply to things which the supposed general rule that whenever a in their nature, the manner and extent of tenant has affixed anything to the demised their annexation, or by other circumstances, premises during his term, he can never again they could not be considered as having been sever it without the consent of the landlord; intended to become a part of the realty; but that the property by being annexed to the those things only become a part of the freeland immediately belongs to the freeholder ; hold when a tenant abandons and leaves that the tenant by making it a part of the them annexed thereto, which would be freehold is considered to have abandoned all deemed a part of the realty if annexed by future right to it, so that it would be waste the owner of the freehold, or in any other in him to remove it afterwards; it therefore case where the presumption that things anfalls in with his term and comes to the nexed by tenants were not intended to bereversioner as part of the land.”:14 When come a part of the realty, was absent. In the term “annexed” is used, as it generally is other words, articles which are in some deused in the authorities, it may be said, con gree connected with or annexed to the realty, sistently with them, that the general rule is to but which to the eye of the world are not the contrary, i. e., that whenever a tenant considered as being a part of the realty, will has made annexations to the freehold during not become a part thereof, merely because his term, he may remove the same at any time the tenant abandons or leaves them after the during the continuance of the term. In expiration of his term. This principle is King v. Wilcomb,16 it is said: "The ancient correctly stated by Mr. Ferard in his work rule that whatever was attached to the free on Fixtures, and seems to be supported in hold by the tenant became a part of the free Holmes v. Tremper,17 and is certaicly very holil, and could not afterwards be removed strongly supported by reason. There are, by bim, has gradually been relaxed in favor perhaps, no cases which are really opposed of the tenant, until now I understand the to the distinction, but it seems to have been
14 Ferard on Fix. 15; Ewell on Fix. 81; Broom's 16 Tiedeman on Real Prop. (2d Ed.) sec. 7, and Leg. Max. 416.
cases cited; Minshall v. Loyd, 2 M. & W. 450. 15 7 Barb. 263.
17 20 Johng. 29.
very generally lost sight of.
venience of agriculture shall be excluded as We will conclude with a consideration of the evidence, as not tending to show whether construction which is placed upon the cele they were or were not intended to become brated case of Elwes v. Maw. 18 Mr. Ewell in a permanent accession to the freehold. Where his work on Fixtures, says:19 “Among those things are annexed for purposes of trade the who concede the binding authority of Elwes law generally deems this fact conclusive eviv. Maw, there has hitherto existed some differ dence that the thing annexed was not inence of opinion as to the exact scope of tended to become a permanent accession to that case as an anthority, some contending the realty, and accordingly it follows that that the case is conclusive against the privi the tenant may remove such annexations as lege of all agricultural tenants to remove any personal property. But if things are an. kind of fixtures erected on the farm during nexed to the realty for agricultural purposes their term, and others construing the case only, can it be said that this fact is evidence somewhat strictly, and contending that the that the thing annexed was intended as a perjudgment has no reference to any other spe manent accession to the freehold, and, therecies of fixtures than those then under the fore, actually does become a part and parcel consideration of the court, no reference to of the realty, not removable by the tenant. manufacture, or machinery, but were No such rule can be gathered from Elwes v. erected for mere agricultural purposes. Maw. The case goes no further than to lay The latter seems to be the more prev down a rule that the fact that buildings were alent, and the better opinion; and it may annexed by a tenant for purposes of agriculprobably be taken as a correct statement of ture only, shall not be evidence that the the law, even where Elwes v. Maw is re building was not intended to become a pergarded as a binding authority on the ques manent accession to the freehold, as it would tion, that mere implements or articles of ma be if the building had been annexed for purchinery, used as a means of facilitating the poses of trade. But after all, wbatever be labor of the tenant not intended to be a per the rule which this case is thought to estabmanent accession to the realty, and remov lish, the case itself hardly merits the very exable integre salve et commode, may be re tensive discussion which may be found in the moved by the tenant for years during his text books and reports with reference to it; term, even though erected for agricultural especially is this true, in view of what seems purposes." It seems, however, that the case to be the present state of the law in the of Elwes v. Maw is not, and ought not to be, United States at least, on this subject. Runconsidered as an authority against the re ning through all the reports there will be moval of any kind of annexation, not even found a seeming distinction between so-called those made by a tepant for mere agricultural "trade fixtures" and "agricultural fixtures" purposes. The case cannot reasonably be as to the right of a tenant who bas annexed construed as going further than to lay down them, to sever and remove them, but the a rule that buildings, when annexed by writer believes that this distinction is rather a tenant for purposes of agriculture only, seeming than real, for the reason that the shall be deemed a part of the freehold, if courts are strongly inclined to hold that the from the manner and extent of the annexa purpose of nearly every annexation is trade, tion, the nature of the buildings them or the mixed purpose of trade and agriculselves, and other circumstances which may ture, in either of which cases the presump.concur, it is evident that they were in tion is that the articles annexed were not tended by the party who annexed them, intended as permanent accessions to the at the time of their annexation, to be realty.20 But where such a finding would be come permanent accessions to the realty; and inconsistent, the doctrine of an implied in determining this question of intention agreement will be often invoked.21 (actual or implied), the fact that the build
A. W. CANTWELL. ings were annexed for the purpose or con
20 Van Ness v. Picard, 2 Pet. 137. 18 3 East, 38.
21 Duboys v. Kelley, 10 Barb. 496; Merchants' Nat. 19 Ewell on Fix. 119.
Bank v. Stanton, 55 Minn. 211, 56 N. W. Rep. 821.
TRADES UNIONS-INJUNCTION-CONSPIRACY tially as follows: A duly authorized agent of the AGAINST PERSONS NOT MEMBERS. defendants would visit a shop where one or more
of the plaintiffs were at work, and inform the emPLANT v. WOODS.
ployer of the action of the defendant union with
reference to the plaintiffs, and ask him to induce Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Sept. 6, 1900. such of the plaintiffs as were in his employ to
The members, agents and servants of a non-incor. sign applications for reinstatement in the defendporated labor union may be restrained from con.
ant union. As to the general nature of these inspiring to compel the members of tbe complainant
terviews the master finds that the defendants bave union to rejoin the defendant union by such coercion,
been courteous in manner, have made no threats threats of loss of property by strikes and boycotts, as will induce their employers to get the complainants
of personal violence, have referred to the plaintto ask for reinstatement in the defendant union, or,
iffs as non-union men, but have not otherwise repthat failing, to discharge them, where such acts were
resented them as men lacking good standing in done intentionally to cause damage to complainants, their craft; that they have not asked that the Laand actually did cause it.
fayette men be discharged, and in some cases Holmes, C. J., dissenting.
have expressly stated that they did not wish to HAMMOND, J.: This case arises out of a con have them discharged, but only that they sign test for supremacy between two labor unions of the blanks for reinstatement in the defendant the same craft, having substantially the same union. The master, however, further finds, from constitution and by-laws. The chief difference all the circumstances under which those requests between them is that the plaintiff union is affili were made, that the defendants intended that ated with a national organization having its employers of Lafayette men should fear trouble headquarters in Lafayette, in the State of Indiana, in their business if they continued to employ such while the defendant union is affiliated with a men, and that employers to whom these requests similar organization having its headquarters in were made were justified in believing that a failBaltimore, in the State of Maryland. The plaint ure on the part of their employees who were Laiff union was composed of workmen who, in fayette men to sign such reinstatement blanks, 1897, withdrew from the defendant union. There and a failure on the part of the employers to disdoes not appear to be anything illegal in the ob charge them for not doing so, would lead to trouject of either union, as expressed in its constitu ble in the business of the employers in the nature tion and by-laws. The defendant union is also of strikes or a boycott; and the employers to represented by delegates in the Central Labor whom these requests were made did believe that Union, which is an organization composed of such results would follow, and did suggest tbeir five delegates from each trades union in the city belief to the defendants, and tbe defendants did of Springfield, and had in its constitution a pro not deny that such results might occur; that the vision for levying a boycott upon a complaint strikes which did occur appear to bave been steps made by any union. The case is before us upon taken by the defendants to obtain the discharge the appeal of the defendants from a final decree of such employees as were Lafayette men who dein favor of the plaintiffs, based upon the findings clined to sign application blanks for reinstatestated in the report of the master.
ment; that these defendants did not in all cases The contest became active early in the fall of threaten a boycott of the employer's business, 1898. In September, of that year the members of but did threaten that the place of business of at the defendant union declared "all painters not least one such employer would be left off from a affiliated with the Baltimore headquarters to be so-called "fair list" to be published by the Baltinon-union men," and voted "to notify bosses" of more union. The master also found that, from all that declaration. The manifest object of the de the evidence presented, the object which the fendants was to have all the members of the craft Baltimore men and the defendant association subjected to the rules and discipline of their par sought to accomplish in all the acts which were ticular union, in order that they might have bet testified to was to compel the members of the Later control over the whole business, and to that fayette union to join the Baltimore union, and as end they combined and conspired to get the a means to this end they caused strikes to be inplaintiffs, and each of them, to join the defend stituted in the shops where strikes would seriously ant association, peaceably, if possible, but by interfere with the business of the shops, and in all threat and intimidation if necessary. Accord- other shops they made such representations as ingly, on October 7th, they voted that, “If our would lead the proprietors thereof to expect demands are not complied with, all men working trouble in their business. We have, therefore, a in shops where Lafayette people are employed case where the defendants have conspired to comrefuse to go to work." The plaintiffs resisting pel the members of the plaintiff union to join the whatever persuasive measures, if any, were used | defendant union, and, to carry out their purpose, by the defendants, the latter proceeded to carry have resolved upon such coercion and intimidaout their plan in the manner fully set forth in the tion as naturally may be caused by threats of loss master's report. Without rehearsing the circum of property by strikes and boycotts, to induce the stances in detail, it is sufficient to say here that employers either to get the plaintiffs to ask for the general method of operations was substan reinstatement in the defendant union, or, that
failing, then to discharge them. It matters not all over the State in the same manner, and compel that this request to discharge has not been ex them to abandon their trade, or bow to the bepressly made. There can be no doubt, upon the hests of their pursuers. It is to be observed that findings of the master and the facts stated in his this is not a case between the employer and emreport, that the compulsory discharge of the ployed, or, to use a hackneyed expression, beplaintiffs in case of non-compliance with the de tween capital and labor, but between laborers all mands of the defendant union is one of the prom of the same craft, and each having the same inent features of the plan agreed upon. It is well right as any one of the others to pursue his callto see what is the meaning of this threat to strike, | ing. In this as in every other case of equal rights when taken in connection with the intimation the right of each individual is to be exercised that the employer may "expect trouble in his with due regard to the similar right of all others, business.” It means more than that the strikers and the right of one be said to end wbere that of will cease to work. That is only the preliminary another begins. The right involved is the right skirmish. It means that those who have ceased to dispose of one's labor with full freedom. This to work will by strong, persistent, and organized is a legal right, and it is entitled to legal protecpersuasion and social pressure of every descrip tion. Sir William Erle, in his book on Trades tion do all they can to prevent the employer Unions (page 12), has stated this in the following from procuring workmen to take their places. It language, which bas been several times quoted means much more. It means that, if these peace with approval by judges in England: "Every ful measures fail, the employer may reasonably person has a right under the law, as between expect that unlawful physical injury may be done bimself and his fellow subjects, to full freedom in to his property; that attempts in all the ways disposing of his own labor or his own capital acpracticed by organized labor will be made to in cording to his own will. It follows that every jure him in his business, even to his ruin, if pos other person is subject to the correlative duty sible; and that by the use of vile and opprobrious arising therefrom, and is prohibited from any obepithets and other annoying conduct, and actual struction to the fullest exercise of this right which and threatened personal violence, attempts will can be made compatible with the exercise of simbe made to intimidate those who enter or desire ilar rights by others. Every act causing an obto enter his employ; and that whether or not all struction to another in the exercise of the right this be done by the strikers or only by their comprised within this description, done not in the sympathizers, or with the open sanction and ap exercise of the actor's own rigbt, but for the purproval of the former, he will have no help from pose of obstruction, would, if damage should be them in his efforts to protect himself. However caused thereby to the party obstructed, be a violamild the language or suave the manner in which tion of this prohibition.” The same rule is stated the threat to strike is made under such circum with care and discrimination by Wells, J., in stances as are disclosed in this case, the employer Walker v. Cronin, 107 Mass. 555: "Every one knows that he is in danger of passing through has a right to enjoy the fruits and advantages of such an ordeal as that above described, and those bis own enterprise, industry, skill, and credit. who make the threat know that as well as he does. He has no right to be protected against competiEven if the intent of the strikers, so far as re tion, but he has a right to be free from malicious spects their own conduct and influence, be to dis and wanton interference, disturbance, or annoycountenance all actual or threatened injury to ance. If disturbance or loss come as the result of person or property or business except that which competition, or the exercise of like rights by is the direct necessary result of the interruption others, it is damnum absque injuria, unless some of the work, and even if their connection with superior right by contract, or otherwise, is interthe injurious and violent conduct of the turbulent fered with. But if it come from the merely wanamong them or of their sympathizers be not such ton or malicious acts of others, without the justias to make them liable criminally, or even an fication of competition, or the service of any inswerable civilly in damages to those who suffer, terest or lawful purpose, it then stands upon a still, with full knowledge of what is to be ex different footing.” In this case the acts compected, they give the signal, and in so doing plained of were calculated to cause damage to the must be held to avail themselves of the degree of plaintiffs, and did actually cause such damage; fear and dread which the knowledge of such con and they were intentionally done for that purpose. sequences will cause in the mind of those—whether Unless, therefore, there was justifiable cause, the their employer or fellow workmen-against whom acts were malicious and unlawful. Walker v. the strike is directed; and the measure of coercion Cronin, ubi supra; Carew v. Rutherford, 106 Mass. and intimidation imposed upon those against 1, and cases cited therein. whom the strike is threatened or directed is not The defendants contend that they have done fulls realized until all those probable conse nothing unlawful, and in support of that contenquences are considered. Such is the nature of tion they say that a person may work for whom the threat, and such the degree of coercion and he pleases, and, in the absence of any contract to intimidation involved in it.” If the defendants ean the contrary, may cease to work when he pleases, lawfully perform the acts complained of in the and for any reason whatever, whether the same city of Springfield, they can pursue the plaintiffs be good or bad; that he may give notice of his
intention in advance, with or without stating the what extent? In cases somewhat akin to the one reason; that what one man may do several men at bar this court has had occasion to consider the acting in concert may do, and may agree before question how far acts manifestly coercive and inhand that they will do and may give notice of timidating in their nature, which cause damage the agreement; and that all this may be lawfully and injury to the business or property of another, done, notwithstanding such concerted action may, and are done with intent to cause such injury, by reason of the consequent interruption of the and partly in reliance upon such coercion, are work, result in great loss to the employer and his justifiable. In Bowen v. Matheson, 14 Allen, 499. other employees, and that such a result was in it was held to be lawful for persons engaged in tended. In a general sense, and without refer the business of shipping seamen to combine toence to exceptions arising out of conflicting pub gether into a society for the purpose of competlic and private interests, all this may be true. It ing with other persons engaged in the same busiis said also that, where one bas the lawful right ness, and it wa: held lawful for them, in pursu to do a thing, the motive by which he is actuated ance of that purpose, to take men out of a ship if is immaterial. One form of this statement ap men shipped by a non-member were in that ship pears in the first headnote in Allen v. Flood, as to refuse to furnish seamen through a non-memreported in (1880) App. Cas. 1, as follows: "An ber, to notify the public that they had combined act lawful in itself is not converted, by a bad or against non-members and bad "laid the plaintiff malicious motive, into an unlawful act, so as to on the shelf," to notify the plaintiff's customers make the doer of the act liable to a civil action." and friends that the plaintiff could not ship seaIf the meaning of this and similar expressions is men for them, and to interfere in all these ways that, where a person has the lawful right to do a with the business of the plaintiff as a shipping thing irrespective of his motive, his motive is im agent, and compel bim to abandon the same. material, the proposition is a mere truism. If, The justification for these acts so injurious to the however, the meaning is that where a person, if business of the plaintiff, and so intimidating in actuated by one kind of a motive, has a lawful their nature, is to be found in the law of competiright to do a thing, the act is lawful when done tion. No legal right of the plaintiff was infringed under any conceivable motive, or that an act law upon, and, as stated by Chapman, J., in giving ful under one set of circumstances is therefore the opinion of the court (page 503): "If the eflawful under every conceivable set of circum fect of these acts was to destroy the business of stances, the proposition does not commend itself shipping masters who are not members of the asto us as either logically or legally accurate. In sociation, it is such a result as, in the competition so far as a right is lawful it is lawful, and in many of business, often follows from a course of procases the right is so far absolute as to be lawful ceedings that the law permits.” The primary whatever may be the motive of the actor,-as, object of the defendants was to build up their own where one digs upon his own land for water business, and this they might lawfully do to the (Greenleaf v. Francis, 18 Pick. 117), or makes a extent disclosed in that case, even to the injury of written lease of his land for the purpose of ter their rivals. Similar decisions have been made minating a tenancy at will (Groustra v. Bour in other courts wbere acts somewhat coercive in ges, 141 Mass. 7, 4 N. E. Rep. 623); but in many their nature and effect have been held justifiable cases the lawfulness of an act which causes dam under the law of competition. Steamship Co. v. age to another may depend upon whether the act McGregor (1892), App. Cas. 25; Manufacturing is for justifiable cause, and this justification may Co. v. Hollis, 54 Minn. 223, 55 N. W. Rep. 1119; be found sometimes in the circumstances under Macauley v. Tierney, 19 R. I. 255, 33 Atl. Rep. 1, wbich it is done, irrespective of motive, some 37 L. R. A. 455. On the other band, it was held in times in the motive alone, and sometimes in the Carew v. Rutherford, 106 Mass. 1, that a conspircircumstances and motive combined. This prin acy against a mechanic—who is under the necesciple is of very general application in criminal sity of employing workmen in order to carry on law, and also is illustrated in many branches of his business-to obtain a sum of money from him, the civil law, as in cases of libel, and of procuring which he is under no legal obligation to pay, by a wife to leave ber husband. Tasker v. Stanley, inducing his workmen to leave bim, or by deter153 Mass. 148, 26 N. E. Rep. 417, 10 L. R. A. 468, ring others from entering into his employ, or by and cases therein cited. Indeed, the principle is threatening to do this, so that he is induced to a prominent feature underlying the whole doc pay the money demanded under a reasonable aptrine of privilege, malice, and intent. See, on prehension that he cannot carry on his business this, an instructive article in 8 Harv. Law Rev. 1, without yielding to the demands, is illegal, if not where the subject is considered at some length. criminal, conspiracy; that the acts done under it It is manifest that not much progress is made by are illegal, and that the money tous obtained may such general statements as those quoted above be recovered back. Chapman, C. J., speaking from Allen v. Flood, whatever may be their mean for the court, says that "there is no doubt that, if ing
the parties under such circumstances succeed in Still standing for solution is the question, under injuring the business of the mechanic, they are wbat circumstances, including the motive of the liable to pay all the damages done to bim." actor, is the act complained of lawful, and to That case bears a close analogy to the one at bar.